Do you think we should get rid of the Change of Rater NCOER?

2014-01-01T15:06:43-05:00

Far too often you will see someone get 2 or more NCOERs in a twelve month period merely because the rater changed not the rated position. An a leader it is nearly impossible to write a quantifiable NCOER for someone you have only rated 90 days when there was nothing significant going on. Take for example the holidays when it's DONSA after DONSA, half days, leaves, no real training etc....

The NCOER should be for the rated soldier and rated position. If they change the position then obviously they are going to need a rating for that job. However if they are going from let's say one squad leader slot to another they are still a squad leader. A letter of continuity from one rater to another should suffice. This will alleviate a pile of menial reports with blatantly exaggerated bullets.

We know all NCOs think they are a 1/1 Among the best but it nearly impossible to report that unless of course they are surrounded by incompetence. A full year gives them more of n opportunity to prove and earn that rating.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 3:11 PM

2014-01-01T15:11:40-05:00

Yes and no. Let's replace everything under 180 days rated time with a memo of continuity (as suggested in a few HRC briefs about the proposed new NCOER).

Yes, there are too many 90 day NCOERs because an annual is due and the rating change kept changing every two months. This doesn't make for a good evaluation of actual demonstrated potential and performance.

No, every rater has different requirements. That's why the initial and quarterly counselings are so important. Some raters want their rated NCOs to be PT studs, experts in the SMCT, and lead field exercises. Others want a technical NCO who can write SOPs, get property in line, and still complete an associates degree.

While the standard for excellence is pretty easy to divine (awesome at everything or almost everything) it gets dicey when we're talking about honest evaluations of those who are inbetween by-the-book satisfactory and 1/1 excellence. That is where the subjective evaluation of the rater comes into play big time.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 3:13 PM

2014-01-01T15:13:27-05:00

This is an interesting topic. I will say that last year's Master Sergeant AAR from the board stated that a bunch of short COR NCOERs were looked upon unfavorably by the board, but I don't see how you can avoid it sometimes.

You can't help as an NCO if your rater changes out.

I was considered a "fixer upper" and sent to various platoons to fix poor leadership and get them organized. So I had several change of raters which I wonder if it's going to hurt me on this board. I took over one platoon. Then I merged that platoon with another that was having issues so I effectively had two platoons. So that's two change of raters. Then I moved back to my HUMINT platoon to do my job for a year, but three months of that I was gone at ASOC. Then I had another COR to become the 1SG. Then in the middle of my rating period my commander changed out.

Ugh.

Response by SSG Genaro Negrete made Jan 24 at 2014 8:07 PM

2014-01-24T20:07:12-05:00

I am coming up on a PCS move and have two NCO's under me that I would like to do letters of continuity for. There isn't enough time from their last NCOERs to my leaving to warrant a COR NCOER, but I would like to leave their new rater some key information, in writing, about their performance. I can't seem to find any examples of a letter of continuity. Can anyone on this thread point me in the right direction?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2014 1:54 AM

2014-02-09T01:54:03-05:00

I avoid a CoR like the plague. It is hard to write a 3 to 6 month NCOER and get a 1/1 or 2/1 and among the best with substantial bullets to back up any excellence ratings. If there is some type of continuity between raters and the NCO didn't change duty positions I will sit all parties down and have them go over the outgoing and incoming. Usually the outgoing will build a really good shell with valid bullets. The incoming will look them over then both will talk about where the rated NCO needs to improve on.

Once it is time for the NCOER to be written I shoot a copy to the old rater and make sure they are good with it before it is signed.

Not the regulation but I think it affords the rated NCO the best opportunity for a solid NCOER.

I saw an NCO that had 4 Change of Rater NCOERs in a 15 month period. It was crazy and I had to have him go a few years past that period so I could get an honest assessment of the NCO.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 8:22 AM

2014-03-13T08:22:00-04:00

I personally don't think its impossible to write a quantifiable NCOER in 90 days as long as the NCO did or has to initiative to do something quantifiable.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 12:15 PM

2014-03-13T12:15:56-04:00

Absolutely get rid of it. Try writing a COR when both you and the ratee only worked six days during the rating period. Welcome to reserve status.

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made Apr 5 at 2022 5:15 PM

2022-04-05T17:15:07-04:00

Wow, SFC Private RallyPoint Member, I'm sure there are a lot of people who read your post were wondering how they could transfer to the Army you were talking about -- an army where soldiers spend three months of doing absolutely nothing.

Any rater who is in charge of soldiers for in excess of 90 days and has no idea how well or poorly those soldiers are performing obviously isn't doing his or her job -- something which hopefully THEIR RATER has noticed. Admittedly in an NCOER that only covers a short period, probably the bullet points won't be as strong as they would be in an Annual report but if a particular NCO is a real top box or bottom box soldier there usually will still be adequate bullet points. The people who end up with weak bullet points are mostly those average soldiers, who would probably have generic middle-of-the-road bullet points anyway.

Eliminating the Change of Rater NCOER would be a disaster. The main result would be an "Annual" NCOER showing a full 12 month period, but being written by some new rater who had not even been around the rated NCO for that period.

One better alternative would be to increase the minimum rating period from 90 days to either 120 or 180 days, BUT this would result in far more people with multiple unrated periods in their file.

The current 90 day minimum rating period is a compromise -- it is a compromise that we have had for a long time because it works reasonably well, and most people think it works better than any of the alternatives involving shorter or longer minimum rating periods.

I won't say that the current system is perfect or even that it is the best system possible, but I haven't see any alternative that actually works better - and eliminating ratings or just eliminating the COR would definitely be throwing out the baby with the bath water.