Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 2116
National personnel administrations and NATO bodies applying NATO rank-code correspondence
STANAG 2116 is NATO's agreement committing member nations to implement APersP-01, the NATO codes for grades of military personnel; it binds nations and NATO bodies, not suppliers, directly.
STANAG 2116 is a NATO Standardization Agreement, currently Edition 7, dated 13 January 2021. It is not a technical specification. It is the agreement by which NATO nations commit to implement APersP-01, Edition A, the Allied Publication that sets out NATO codes for grades of military personnel. The document's own aim is to respond to an interoperability requirement: "to standardize NATO codes of rank for military personnel and indicate correspondence with nations ranks." Read on its own, STANAG 2116 requires nothing of a supplier or contractor. Its obligations run to nations and to NATO's own structures, and the rank-code detail itself sits in APersP-01, not in this cover.
STANAG 2116 is explicit that it binds nations rather than organisations. Its letter of promulgation describes the enclosed agreement as one "which has been ratified by member nations, as reflected in the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD), is promulgated herewith." Under "Agreement," participating nations agree to implement APersP-01, Edition A - a national commitment, made by ratification, not a duty a supplier signs up to by reading this document. Ratification and implementation are kept separate: the text invites nations that have not yet reported their position to "advise the NSO of their intention regarding its ratification and implementation." So "is STANAG 2116 mandatory" has no single answer: it depends on whether a given nation has ratified and implemented it, and this cover names no supplier, manufacturer or contractor at all.
The interoperability requirement STANAG 2116 responds to is "to standardize NATO codes of rank for military personnel and indicate correspondence with nations ranks." The STANAG states it "is effective upon receipt for use by the participating nations and NATO bodies" - a NATO-wide mechanism. Its implementation names two distinct users: nations, who work the codes "using NATO codes in their correspondence to designate the rank military personnel established within NATO," incorporating them into personnel training and into the correspondence between national ranks and NATO codes; and NATO itself, using the codes "for descriptions and job descriptions within its structures." Partner nations are separately invited, rather than obliged, to report their own adoption.
A reader who only has STANAG 2116 in hand does not yet have the codes it points to. The rank list and the correspondence tables between national ranks and NATO codes sit in APersP-01, Edition A. STANAG 2116 names no other related document: "other related documents" is answered "None." Edition 7, 13 January 2021, supersedes STANAG 2116, Edition 6, dated 25 February 2010.
National responses on ratification are recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database, and Allies provide their ratification details through the electronic reporting tool. Nations and NATO bodies provide their implementation details the same way, and partner nations are invited to provide theirs. The STANAG itself "is to be reviewed in accordance with AAP-03," with the result "recorded within the NSDD" - a check on whether the agreement is still current, not an audit of any nation's rank administration. The agreement is supervised under the authority of NATO's Military Committee Land structure (MC, MCLSB, LO, SLTSP).
STANAG 2116 names no rank list, pay grade or promotion criterion of its own - that detail sits entirely in APersP-01. It also names no assessment or certification scheme: the only stated check is that the STANAG itself is reviewed periodically, not that a nation, an organisation or an individual is certified.
STANAG 2116 itself gives an organisation nothing to implement in software: it is an agreement between nations, and the rank-code detail sits in APersP-01. Where this occasionally touches an organisation working alongside NATO or a national defence customer is a liaison, training or reporting role that needs to reference NATO rank codes and their national correspondence accurately - and there, ComplyTrain's usual footprint applies: holding the procedure that describes the role as a controlled document, the training record showing the people carrying it out know the correspondence they are working with, and the audit trail a customer's quality representative would ask for if that role were questioned.
ComplyTrain does not assign rank codes, decide a promotion or a grade, or administer a nation's personnel records - that is a national personnel-administration function which APersP-01 itself governs, not something a compliance tool does on a nation's or a supplier's behalf. Our standards explorer shows what else sits alongside STANAG 2116 - if you are weighing up what a tasking or contract actually requires of you, we're glad to talk it through.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 2116 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.
Not on its own. A STANAG binds a nation once that nation has ratified and implemented it, and this cover names no supplier, manufacturer or contractor at all. Whether it touches a given organisation is a question for the contract or tasking in front of you, not for this page.
STANAG 2116 is the cover agreement: it commits nations to implement APersP-01 but contains no rank codes itself. APersP-01, Edition A is the Allied Publication that actually sets out the NATO codes for grades of military personnel and their correspondence with national ranks.
No. STANAG 2116 describes no certification or accreditation scheme. Its only stated check is a periodic review of the agreement's own currency, carried out in accordance with AAP-03. NATO does not certify a nation or an organisation against a STANAG.
Edition 7, dated 13 January 2021, which supersedes STANAG 2116, Edition 6, dated 25 February 2010.
Partner nations are separately invited to provide their own implementation details, but the text names this as an invitation, not a ratification obligation.
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.