Posted on Jun 26, 2015
How do you ladies and gentlemen feel about all of the 1/1 NCOERs that are submitted every rating period?
9.73K
27
15
5
5
0
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!
NCOER
NCO Academy
NCOs
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
6
6
0
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 (Join to see) 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.
You cant have one guy such as SFC (Join to see) 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.
(6)
(0)
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.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Is a 1/2 or a 2/1 that bad? Maybe a 2/2, for brand new, junior NCOs? I believe that is fair, unless they're bringing it to the table. But of course, it would be "bad" for the NCOs career, and would affect him later on, or so the story goes.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sir, the problem with mediocre in the military is that it is still really good. Being "average" and "really good" aren't mutually exclusive.
You're right that it hurts the top performers the most because they aren't being acknowledged correctly for being outlyers.
But how do you make a system that doesn't "punish" Average, when they are Good?
You're right that it hurts the top performers the most because they aren't being acknowledged correctly for being outlyers.
But how do you make a system that doesn't "punish" Average, when they are Good?
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - It's actually pretty simple. The middle 50% of NCOs cannot all be promoted to E-9 Command, and the middle 50% of Officers can't be promoted to 4-Star Generals. That's not punishing anyone. So they may be "really good" -- their reward is to serve as NCOs in the US military entrusted with the lives of our nation's Soldiers and Marines. Being "pretty good" is simply expected. Being promoted is not a right. We can't promote everyone. So we either promote those who are most deserving, or we give 1/1 to almost everyone and promote randomly. The latter is just destructive.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Yinon Weiss Concur 100% but the way we are "building evaluation reports" is leading to the problem.
About 15 years ago the USMC faced the exact same issue. If you weren't all to one side, you were screwed. They changed the FitRep (Fitness Report), and made each of the sections more "Objective" in nature, and require bullets to justify anything outside the "Average" rating.
As an example, I received top marks on Education because I was attending College (and going to Base education doing CLEPS/DANTES), had completed my PME through SNCO, including all Intel, Ops, AND Admin, and was working through the Comm side.
On the bottom of the FitRep there was also the "Pyramid" which basically broken down the Top 1%, Top 10%, Many Qualified Marines, and "Sub Par Marines."
I've attached Example p2 (Google search) to show the Pyramid. There are 6-8 pages iirc.
I am in no way advocating promoting everyone, I am merely saying the "tool" we are using may be flawed.
About 15 years ago the USMC faced the exact same issue. If you weren't all to one side, you were screwed. They changed the FitRep (Fitness Report), and made each of the sections more "Objective" in nature, and require bullets to justify anything outside the "Average" rating.
As an example, I received top marks on Education because I was attending College (and going to Base education doing CLEPS/DANTES), had completed my PME through SNCO, including all Intel, Ops, AND Admin, and was working through the Comm side.
On the bottom of the FitRep there was also the "Pyramid" which basically broken down the Top 1%, Top 10%, Many Qualified Marines, and "Sub Par Marines."
I've attached Example p2 (Google search) to show the Pyramid. There are 6-8 pages iirc.
I am in no way advocating promoting everyone, I am merely saying the "tool" we are using may be flawed.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I agree with you on half. The new system could pit peers against one another. Resources could be hoarded instead of shared. But as a Corps we should be better than that and overcome it. The new system will force the ranking against one another. It will seperate the good from the great- and it will push people to not be satisfied with good and strive for greatness.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
SSG Zachary Vrba That is an excellent question. From the CSMs and COLs I have talked to, that have sat on boards, they look at the bullets and then look at what is marked to see if the correlate each other. It is always better to have very strong bullets and have Success checked than weak bullets for an Excellence.
I knew SNCOs that wrote their own NCOERs and had some bull shit bullets and check themselves down for 5/5 for Excellence and 1/1. They were not doing themselves any favors doing that.
I never wrote my NCOER, I always made my rater do it. After all it is their job not mine. I would do all the admin info for them and write things that I have done during the rating period but not in bullet format and then let them figure it out from there.
Remember, your bullets need to substantiate your Excellence. I cannot stress enough that very strong Success bullets are a ton better than weak ass Excellence bullets. Also, the SR bullets need to cover performance, promotion, potential, and advance schooling. They might have tweaked that in the last couple of years since I retired. The SR bullets play a big part in the overall picture of the NCOER. Not just 1/1 or whatever they check. Board Members only have a few minutes per packet that they look at so they need to get a good vibe. I cannot stress enough of having an updated DA Photo and ERB. Make sure you ERB info is up to date on; unit, APFT, HT/WT, weapons qual, military schooling, civilian schooling, AWARDS (big one), and PULHES if you have a profile. Those are the big ones that need to be spot on but everything on your ERB needs to be up to date. If those are jacked up you are going to be behind the power curve when board members review your packet.
I knew SNCOs that wrote their own NCOERs and had some bull shit bullets and check themselves down for 5/5 for Excellence and 1/1. They were not doing themselves any favors doing that.
I never wrote my NCOER, I always made my rater do it. After all it is their job not mine. I would do all the admin info for them and write things that I have done during the rating period but not in bullet format and then let them figure it out from there.
Remember, your bullets need to substantiate your Excellence. I cannot stress enough that very strong Success bullets are a ton better than weak ass Excellence bullets. Also, the SR bullets need to cover performance, promotion, potential, and advance schooling. They might have tweaked that in the last couple of years since I retired. The SR bullets play a big part in the overall picture of the NCOER. Not just 1/1 or whatever they check. Board Members only have a few minutes per packet that they look at so they need to get a good vibe. I cannot stress enough of having an updated DA Photo and ERB. Make sure you ERB info is up to date on; unit, APFT, HT/WT, weapons qual, military schooling, civilian schooling, AWARDS (big one), and PULHES if you have a profile. Those are the big ones that need to be spot on but everything on your ERB needs to be up to date. If those are jacked up you are going to be behind the power curve when board members review your packet.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google