How do you ladies and gentlemen feel about all of the 1/1 NCOERs that are submitted every rating period?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:16:52 -0400

I saw an excellent post by a SFC Benavidez about 93 percent of NCOERS that get to HQDA are 1/1s. Does that mean that 93 percent are that good? Are we using the NCOER correctly? I personally have only rated 2 NCOs so far with no experience with rating anyone. I would like to hear people's thoughts and opinions about this, thanks!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 26 at 2015 6:23 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:23:47 -0400

I mentioned this in the AF thread, but... when you have a group where "everyone" wants to be there, the distribution curve is going to get skewed when it comes to "relative" performance.

Break it down by 1/5s. Will there ever really be a "bottom 1/5?" or will it be a case where you have 2 or 3 guys that are tied for #1, 80 guys tied for #2, and the rest tied for #3, which is just "barely" behind 1&2. From a rater perspective, he can't really knock the #2 & #3 group because they aren't bad. They are indeed that good. Not as good as #1 (who is an outlyer), but not "bad enough" to be considered lower on a performance evaluation.

That's a function of the measurement tool, which is flawed.

Using ONLY the run portion of a PFT, if everyone came in within 10 seconds of each other, except the bottom 7% who were a minute behind the pack.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jun 26 at 2015 6:34 AM

SFC Stephen King — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:34:37 -0400

This particular issue has been a ongoing debate for awhile. Once the new NCOER is implemented the narratives will need to be constructed in a manner to warrant a high rating. This will also challenge the rater in Grammer and sentence structure. That being said as a rater it is imperative to counsel your NCO'S effectively.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jun 26 at 2015 7:18 AM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:18:54 -0400

Yes, this is a major problem. It hurts the real top performers the most, because there is no way to differentiate between the top NCOs (say the top 20%), and the mediocre NCOs (say the middle 60%), if they all get a 1/1.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Jun 26 at 2015 9:09 AM

MAJ Jim Steven — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:09:57 -0400

My only fear with this type of thing...it cant be fixed at the individual level - it has to be system wide.
You cant have one guy such as SFC Private RallyPoint Member decide that too many people are getting 1/1s and start giving out lower scores - then, only YOUR people are getting low scores and they get passed over.
Kinda like when one commander decides to fix the awards program and shortchanges all of his/her people on awards because they feel that ex: Bronze Stars are given out way too easily.
I agree with you, SSG Pando, but i needs to come from the top down.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 9:29 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:29:42 -0400

Personally, I think way too big of a deal is being made of it. Officers have only been able to give 1/1s to a certain portion of their subordinates. And, I feel like it's always led to a "dog-eat-dog" culture there -- where they've always been overly concerned about pleasing their superiors rather than doing the right thing.

The current focus on changing the NCOER process to address that "issue" seems flawed. The military has ALREADY found work-arounds. Promotion boards glance at the ratings and, when they see 1/1s or all 5s, they snicker. What really makes a difference is the content and quality of the NCOER bullets -- whether they are specific and quantitative, rather than just general "he's a good guy" bullets that were cut and pasted from the NCOER manuals.

I'm really concerned that the changes to the system and going to end up making the process unworkable. Yeah, regulations say all of these things about the NCO rating chain. However, we all know how fluid that system is -- particularly in the National Guard/Reserves. And, when they start making it so that the system locks you out and prevents you from making adjustments, it's going to leave a lot of good NCOs with huge gaps in their career.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 9:50 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:50:53 -0400

I have personally seen inflated NCOERS and this pisses me off. I know of several sub-standard NCOs who received 1/1 rating who actually deserved at best a 3/3 rating. Why does this happen? Because leaders are to scared to hurt people's feelings and are to lazy/scared to counsel an NCO. Because of this we are creating weak leaders who should of been weeded out earlier in their career. Everyone wants a trophy!!

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jun 26 at 2015 9:56 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:56:46 -0400

Your bullet comments make your NCOER. It doesn't matter what the rater checks if the bullet comments do not reflect on what is checked.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 2:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:05:45 -0400

"Resist the urge to do stupid" should be held in higher regard. A lot of NCOERs and OERs are guilty of "grade-padding", in my opinion.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 27 at 2015 6:53 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:53:29 -0400

The officers have a better situation as senior raters can't give everyone a top block.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 6 at 2018 4:46 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:46:28 -0500

This is why I think evaluations need to be bullet only. No point systems. It's too arbitrary. If someone is awesome. Prove it. Show me in the bullets. If some one sucks. Prove it. Show me in the bullets. Force people to quantify.