Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
APersP-01
Nations' armed forces preparing personnel tables, requisitions and returns for NATO postings and multinational commands
APersP-01 is NATO's OF/OR code system, covered by STANAG 2116, that lets a nation state a service member's grade in personnel documents destined for NATO commands.
APersP-01 is the NATO Allied Personnel Publication that sets a single alphanumeric code for every military rank across the Alliance: OF-1 to OF-10 for officers, OR-1 to OR-9 for other ranks. It exists because more than thirty armed forces each use their own rank titles, and a NATO staff post, a personnel return or a multinational headquarters needs one scale everyone can read underneath all of that. It is covered by STANAG 2116, the ratified agreement through which NATO nations commit to using the code system; APersP-01 itself is the technical content, the code table, that the STANAG gives force to once a nation adopts it. Edition A Version 3 was promulgated in June 2022.
Paragraph 1 states its purpose directly: the publication "details the NATO codes of military personnel ranks for use by nations when preparing personnel tables, requisitions, reports and returns destined for NATO nations, organizations and commands." That makes it a document for nations, not for industry: whoever within a defence ministry or armed force prepares establishment tables, strength returns or requisitions for a NATO posting. It never addresses a supplier, manufacturer or contractor, and it is careful to say so about its own reach in the other direction too: paragraph 2 states plainly that "nothing in this publication is to prejudice existing national grades designations or procedures in purely national establishments." A nation's own promotion and rank system is untouched; APersP-01 only supplies the shared label once someone crosses into a NATO context.
Paragraph 4 gives the two bands the rest of the document builds on: "Officers OF-1 - 10," with "General officer OF-6 to 10," "Senior officer OF-3 to 5" and "Junior officer OF-1 to 2" inside it, and "Other ranks OR-1 - 9." Paragraph 5 narrows the lower band further: "For NATO purposes, OR-5 to OR-9 inclusive are considered Non-Commissioned Officers." Paragraph 6 lists what the code is actually used to prepare: establishment tables, personnel statistics, strength returns, personnel requisitions and other personnel reports, "to include Automated Data Handling (ADH) reporting procedures." Paragraph 7 requires a requisition for a NATO post to "indicate the NATO code herein specified in conjunction with the approved manning document," and expects the post to be filled by someone holding that grade, though a person holding a different national rank is still expected to perform the post's duties.
The bulk of the publication, Annexes A through F, is not narrative at all: A to C give NATO codes for officer personnel in the Army, Navy and Air Force, and D to F do the same for non-officer personnel, each annex a nation-by-nation table followed by a notes section of footnoted national detail. We have not reproduced those tables here; what follows is what an auditor, or anyone reading a manning document, would actually need to know about how they vary. Every code rests on a nation's own domestic legislation, listed nation by nation in the publication's "National References" section, from Canada's National Defence Act to the United States' Title 10.
Paragraph 9 sets the one formatting rule that shows up outside the tables: in a document naming personnel of different nations or services, the grade is "preceded by the national distinguishing letters and one of the following abbreviations for the service concerned: (A) for Army, (M) for Marines, (N) for Navy, (AF) for Air Force, (CG) for Coast Guard and (SI) for Service Immaterial," so that, in the document's own example, "Belgian Army Colonel = BEL (A) OF-5." Paragraph 8 adds that precedence between personnel inside a NATO organisational or functional element follows the approved manning document for that element, not rank alone.
Two things worth knowing before reading an annex table literally. First, the OF-1 to OF-10 and OR-1 to OR-9 bands are not universal even within one nation's own forces: several smaller nations record no equivalent against one or more codes, and a number of nations, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro and Slovakia, use a single rank structure across both Army and Air Force rather than separate ones. Second, at least one nation steps outside the stated floor: Latvia identifies its own Lieutenant rank "by the Code OF-0," a level below paragraph 4's OF-1 baseline, with nothing elsewhere in the text revising that baseline. The US Warrant Officer grades sit outside both bands too: the notes describe the Warrant Officer as "a separate and distinct category of officers in US Forces" whose "rank and precedence is below those of officer personnel, but above that of non-officer personnel," carried in its own W-1 to W-5 column rather than folded into OF or OR.
There is no accreditation, audit or certification scheme against APersP-01. It is a shared vocabulary, and paragraph 2's guarantee that it does not touch a nation's own grading procedures means nobody assesses a nation's promotion or rank-award system against it either; that runs under the nation's own law. In practice a code gets "checked" only administratively, when a NATO staff officer reading a manning document or return confirms the code shown matches the rank the annex tables record for that nation, not against any external scheme this publication creates.
APersP-01 sets a coding convention between nations' armed forces and NATO commands. It creates no requirement, evidence expectation or audit surface for a commercial supplier, so there is little here for a compliance platform to attach to directly. Where it shows up in a supplier's world at all, it is usually indirect: a personnel-management or manning system built for a defence customer needs its data model to accept the OF and OR codes, or a training record needs to describe a role by NATO grade rather than a purely national title. ComplyTrain's role there is the same as for any other documented process a contract calls for: controlled procedures, version-tracked records and the audit trail that shows what was done and when, whether or not an APersP-01 code appears inside them.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not assign, verify or convert a military rank, and it takes no part in a nation's manning documents, personnel requisitions or NATO posting decisions. What sits alongside APersP-01 in a defence programme, and whether it touches your work at all, is set by the contract and the nation's own personnel administration, not by us. Browse the standards explorer for what else this Allied Publication connects to, and talk to us about the documentation trail behind whichever requirement actually does apply to you.
Tell us how you need to work with APersP-01 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
No supplier obligation appears anywhere in the document. APersP-01 is a NATO Allied Publication covered by STANAG 2116, the agreement NATO nations ratify to adopt the code system for their own personnel administration; it does not reach a commercial contractor as a compliance requirement.
OF codes, OF-1 to OF-10, cover officers, and OR codes, OR-1 to OR-9, cover other ranks. For NATO purposes, OR-5 to OR-9 are counted as Non-Commissioned Officers. The actual rank title each code maps to is set nation by nation in the publication's annexes, not by the code itself.
No. The publication is explicit that "Nothing in this publication is to prejudice existing national grades designations or procedures in purely national establishments." It adds a shared NATO code on top for use in NATO-facing documents; a nation's own rank system continues exactly as before.
The current text is Edition A, Version 3, promulgated June 2022. It does not explain what changed between versions, though a footnote elsewhere in the same edition refers back to an "Edition A Version 1," confirming at least one earlier version existed.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.