Do you think it is appropriate for Raters/Sr. Raters to withhold an "top block" eval because the rated Soldier is leaving active duty?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:28:28 -0500

I recently overheard a conversation between active component officers who were saying they are not going to "waste" a "top block" evaluation on an officer who is leaving active duty. A courageous former USAR officer asked, "What is they are going to the Army Reserve"? The response was, "I have to look out for us."; meaning Active Component.

My opinion is give the Soldier the evaluation they earned. Keep the component rivalry out of it. Please share your opinion.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 8:32 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:32:53 -0500

This is going to be a frequent topic of discussion with the new eval system as "who gets the top black" is going to be an issue. Some people are going to get the top block because they are up for promotion and another soldier is not. Some people are going to get top block because they are due to go to a NCOES school and some soldier is not. I don't think I need to go any further. Unfortunately, there are going to be many times the best soldier doesn't get the best rating because senior NCOs/Officers rationalize in their head why someone else is more deserving. As for me I will continue my trend of rating my soldiers accordingly without regard to who is promotable and who is due to go to school. If they want to get the best rating then they need to work to be the best.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 8:40 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:40:47 -0500

Totally Agree with you LTC Private RallyPoint Member

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 13 at 2016 9:19 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:19:14 -0500

This sounds like a Subjective Analysis issue. Any time a system allows a person to "intentionally" make a Subjective analysis, especially a comparative one, we add far too much weight to that section.

I'd hazard to say that the "math" should almost be "hidden" from the rater, in that they just won't know themselves.

As an example, if LTC Private RallyPoint Member is rating myself and 10 other Sergeants, the the "front page" score will show X, but HE (the Col) would have a sort of "Handicap" or "Grading Curve" which every Sergeant is going up against. If we were looking at a % scale, and I came in at 90%, but his average is 93%, I'm "below average" however if he sways 85% I end up a "top performer." Because the goal post is moving with each new evaluation, he will never know exactly where the mark is, and "in theory" it should keep things relatively/comparatively honest, since he's never worried about component etc.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Jan 13 at 2016 9:22 AM

MAJ Bill Darling — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:22:15 -0500

I concur, sir. The problem with the rationale of the officers you referenced is that they seem to think it's their job to give out as many top blocks as possible *to people they feel best need them* (whether that be RA folks or people going before a board) rather than rate folks based strictly on their performance. And that's why the Army had use a quota system for top blocks because of the excessive inflation caused precisely by that type of thinking.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 9:22 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:22:18 -0500

This is exactly why the eval system needs to be overhauled.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jan 13 at 2016 9:30 AM

CMSgt James Nolan — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:30:58 -0500

I agree with you LTC Private RallyPoint Member To rate someone highly because they are still on AD vs the person who earned the rating but plans on separating (for his/her own reasons) is ludicrous.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 10:19 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:19:40 -0500

That's just wrong on so many levels. And again, people wonder why there is animosity between components.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jan 13 at 2016 10:23 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:23:46 -0500

TL/DR: Raters rate on Performance. Senior Raters rate on Potential. Potential is a judgement call and a lot of factors can go into it.

So, I get where you are coming from, and have witnessed a very similar scenario - AC/RC unit where the AC raters habitually give "top blocks" to the AC subordinates and COM to the RC subordinates. Uncool. (For the record, this was not an issue I experienced firsthand, but I witnessed it on a fairly regular basis).

However, in fairness, I think it's a little more complicated than that and we need to look at what the system was designed to do and what each person in the puzzle is supposed to do.

The system is designed to assess current PERFORMANCE and future POTENTIAL.
The Rated Officer's role (similar for enlisted, but the Q used an O example. And historically, there has not been a "cap" on top blocks on the E side. As the new NCOER, with it's Rater and Senior Rater profiles rolls out, they will get to experience this as well. ) is to ensure that he/she understands what the boss needs and to perform to the best of their ability.
The Rater's role is to assess current PERFORMANCE.
The Senior Rater's role is the assess POTENTIAL for future service at higher levels.
Hopefully, none of the above is in any way controversial.

During the final rating period, the Rated Officer should perform to the best of their ability. If they decide to be ROAD, they should expect to be evaluated as same....

During ANY rating period, the Rater should assess based on current performance. The fact that the Rated Officer is leaving active duty, the current assignment, going to the reserves, retiring, or coming up for a board. (Yes, I bet that last just annoyed a lot of people, but assessing performance based on whether that person is going to a board or not is manifestly unfair to those who are working hard without being before a board.)

Again, the above, with the exception of my comment on boards, should not be controversial.

Here is where the rub comes.... When evaluating potential for future service, especially at higher ranks, a lot of non-performance issues come into play. This is by design. This is where talent management is supposed to come into the system as we select and groom the next generations of leadership. (For the moment, we will ignore the fact that we really only do talent management at the GEN/COL and MAYBE LTC level) A lot of things come into play. How diplomatic is the person, how well do they understand the Army as an institution and its role in the government, do they have an appropriate academic background, etc. etc. etc.

One key factor in potential for future service HAS to be the decisions that the Rated Officer is known to have made regarding ACTUAL future service. If an Officer has dropped their retirement packet and has an approved retirement date.... They have almost ZERO potential for future service, especially at a higher grade. If an Officer has been twice passed over for promotion.... They have almost ZERO potential for future service, especially at a higher grade (and, for the record, for the first time in practically forever I know of an Officer who is actually being separated for being a 2 time non-select. Not QMP, QSB, just non-select). QMP or QSB selectee, I would have to judge their potential as pretty low. They CAN, under current policy, end up going from AC to RC in that case (which is a great message about the regard in which the RC is held.....). However, I don't foresee a stellar career in the RC following QMP/QSB. If they don't have the appropriate educational background, that is going to be seen as a limiting factor. If they don't have the "right" blend of previous duty assignments, that is going to be a limiting factor. Those last several don't say "no" potential, but I think it would be fair to really look at it. Potential for advancement in that Officer's branch/FA is also a valid concern.

I said everything above, so that I could say this about your scenario: The Soldier EARNS the PERFORMANCE section of the evaluation. The potential section is forward-looking and not "earned". If the reported comment was made at the Rater level, it was professional malpractice. If the reported comment was made at the Senior Rater level, it's more complicated.

The Rater should rate them on their performance. Period. The Senior Rater should rate them based on the Senior Rater's ASSESSMENT of that Officer's ACTUAL POTENTIAL for continued service, especially at higher grades. This assessment should be based off of the Senior Rater's knowledge of the Officer and any plans that they know the Officer has.

We don't have all the facts in your scenario, so it is a little hard to know how much to read into it. If this is an LTC being discussed, and IF they are going into the RC (someone suggested that in your scenario, but I don't know if that was the rated officer's plan. I would hope that the Rater and Senior Rater knew.), well I know that that have chosen to have zero actual potential for future service in the AC, let alone at a higher grade. I also know that they have significantly lowered their chances of COL or COL-level command. Depending on location and willingness to travel, they may have foreclosed the opportunity for ANY meaningful COL-level assignments.

In this scenario, there is a very legitimate question of WHAT this Officer's future potential to serve, especially at higher grades. That question is going to be answered by the intersection of 1) the facts in this case and 2) the Senior Rater's assessment of the Officer, the facts, and the overall environment. I could certainly come up with non-obviously-stupid sets of facts and assessments that would lead me to give this Officer an ACOM or a COM or even a BCOM (yes, I know, new terms now....). But, as always, the question is what conclusions does the Senior Rater reach, and are those conclusions congruent with conclusions they have reached in the past? Because, ultimately, it is a judgement call.

Were I that Senior Rater, assuming the fact was that the Officer was transitioning to the RC, I would not automatically say "no ACOM". I would, however, look at that as a factor in reaching my assessment of that Officer's overall potential. As a rater, I have given several Officers ACOMs and recommended COM to the Senior Rater.

And, in case anyone is still reading and is not yet pissed off, I would NOT give any Officer (or NCO) an ACOM in performance or potential "because they are going in front of the board." That is a perversion of the evaluation system. We cannot simultaneously say we should only promote the best, enable promoting people regardless of actual performance and potential, and then complain about the deadweight that gets promoted when "better" people are passed over or involuntarily separated, and then also complain about the decline in the quality of senior leadership.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 13 at 2016 1:00 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:00:49 -0500

If I understand the situation correctly, it would be similar to "Early Promote", "Must Promote", "Promote" aspect of Navy FITREPS. A Reporting Senior is restricted to a certain number of EP, MP, etc. depending on the size of the competitive group. So if you have two EPs and three top performers with one punching out, then you frequently see the one leaving get the MP check. You're trying to give the larger push forward to those who will be there. That said, a Reporting Senior isn't required to use all their ammo but some do anyways. We see that as a disconnect at the Boards wherein the recommendation doesn't match up with the narrative.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jan 13 at 2016 4:00 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:00:11 -0500

No. I think the officer in your example is despicable and glad that it was a fictional character as an example of what not to do. Yes Sir, I do know...but there are young readers here.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jan 13 at 2016 9:40 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:40:05 -0500

Is it right? Absolutely not. Does it happen? Absolutely. In my last two deployments as an USAR officer, I was rated by an active duty Division CG. So I was in the same block of officers that included all Battalion Commanders and Division primary staff officers. I knew I was going to get a COM regardless of how I performed because I was a Reserve officer. They were going to save those for the future Brigade Commanders. I accepted that and volunteered to deploy because it was my duty. What bothered me was my final OER as a LTC in my Reserve unit. The Group Commander said that since I had been passed over for COL 3 times, I was not going to be selected so even though I was deserving of a ACOM, she was going to save those for the officers who still had promotion potential. That was one of the most demotivating times in my military career.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jan 14 at 2016 9:07 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:07:12 -0500

IMO if they would do that they lack integrity. OER/NCOER are there to show what they have accomplished during the rating period. Not what the rated person plans on doing with their life.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jan 14 at 2016 4:30 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:30:03 -0500

Well on my side of the house, it is damn near impossible to get that block, as typically there may only be one Warrant in a unit . I had a commander explain to me in my situation that the was written would count more than, than the rating, as it was almost impossible to get that sought after block.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2016 1:24 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 01:24:08 -0500

Sir,

I recently wrote an op-ed about this very issue on Task & Purpose, particularly with the implementation of the new rating system that restricts certain ratings.

Since its start for officers, I've heard 1LTs who did top block work not get it because the rater/senior rater wanted to give it to those LTs who were up for the promotion board. Is it a strategy? Most definitely. Does it give an accurate representation of the officer's performance? Not at all.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2020 2:01 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2020 14:01:59 -0500

To me, I’d have to ask myself if that MQ is going to positively affect the retiring soldier and...Is there another soldier worthy of the MQ? If the answer to the second question is “yes”, I’d save the MQ for the other High performing soldier. If the answer to the first question is “yes”, I’d give the retiring soldier the MQ if they deserve it and nobody else does.