Apatite (U-Th)/He (AHe) dating is a widely-applied thermochronological technique used to decipher low-temperature thermal histories. Accurate dates require that the results are corrected for α-ejection because 4He atoms travel ~20 µm during α-decay and a correction is required to account for He lost by this effect. Effective uranium concentrations (eU) are important for accurate AHe data interpretation because radiation damage scales with eU, which affects He retentivity. Both α-ejection correction parameter (Ft) and eU are calculated on the basis of crystal size and assuming an idealized morphology. However, the uncertainty stemming from the calculations’ assumptions depends on how much the real crystal geometry deviates from that assumed, and this uncertainty is typically not included in the propagated uncertainties on AHe data. Our goal for this study was to develop a ‘rule of thumb’ for Ft and eU uncertainties associated with the full range of commonly analyzed apatite geometries by comparing manually measured grain size and actual grain size using nano-computed tomography (nano-CT). Apatite geometry and roughness were characterized using a Grain Evaluation Matrix (GEM). The geometry of each grain was described as: A (prismatic/hexagonal), B (subprismatic), or C (rounded/ellipsoid). Surface roughness was graded from ‘least’ to ‘most’ using values from 1 to 3. The GEM allows for a single parameter (eg. B2) to succinctly classify a grain’s morphology. High resolution nano-CT scans of ~260 grains representative of those usually analyzed for AHe dates were completed and processed using Dragonfly and Blob3D. Initial analysis shows that manual grain measurements systematically overestimate the actual grain size, leading to overestimates in Ft and eU values. One correction exists for A and B grains (hexagonal) and another for C grains (ellipsoid). The correction is controlled primarily by grain size and shape, while the uncertainty on the correction appears to be controlled primarily by surface roughness. Together, this approach provides a simple and practical tool for deriving more accurate Ft and concentration values, and for incorporating this oft neglected geometric uncertainty into AHe dates.