How would you revamp the NCOER Process?

SFC Randy Purham — Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:08:08 -0500

The
NCOER system needs to be revamped. Here’s a proposal/idea: When a NCO arrives
to the unit, their rating scheme is established and posted to their iPERMS.
Quarterly Counselings (DA Form 2166-8-1 [OCT 2011] are done and digitally
signed/dated and accompanies the actual NCOER when the NCOER is due. This will
alleviate false raters/senior raters and also reduces the amount of “fluffed”
and “unfair” ratings. This will also hold accountable – by name – who is taking
the necessary time to develop, teach, coach and mentor rated NCOs for career
progression and professional development. In addition to forcing the superior
leadership to do their job with collaboration of the rated NCO. With each
change of rater a new rating scheme is posted after the Change of Rater NCOER
is posted. With every Annual Report (typically 2-3) should show improvement of
the rated NCO over that course of time or stagnation – depending on the OPTEMPO
and environment. This then should be the deciding factor of their next
selection/choice of assignments. This way will extract out “duds” at the Rated,
Rater and Senior Rater level and assist in force reductions that the DoD is so
anxiously trying to do. Your thoughts?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2013 4:06 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:06:16 -0500

I actually just touched on this in another thread... NO, I do NOT think the Army evaluation process is fair. I can't tell you HOW many times I've seen a block-checker get promoted over someone who really deserved it.

I think the biggest improvement the Army could make would be some way for NCOs to honestly say that an individual was not ready for promotion that doesn't reflect badly on the supervisor... because there ARE individuals who are just not mature enough or technically proficient enough to handle the promotion, but they look GREAT on paper...

I don't think it should matter if SPC Snuffy has 799 promotion points and the MOS has 1000 in-calls for SGT, if SPC Snuffy refuses to be ready to be SGT Snuffy, then his NCO shouldn't be punished for not getting him promoted.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2013 4:09 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:09:57 -0500

Second, as I mentioned in the other thread, some kind of objective testing in MOS and General Military knowledge (such as other services have, I'm told) could help weed out the people who 1) have no clue how to do their MOS job, and/or 2) are lost in the sauce when it comes to Military knowledge.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Dec 28 at 2013 4:10 PM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:10:22 -0500

Those are some very interesting ideas. There are changes coming and I will be curious to see how those changes to the document are implemented through the ranks. I agree with you that the -1s should accompany the EVAL into iPERMS.

Response by CSM Mike Maynard made Dec 28 at 2013 7:09 PM

CSM Mike Maynard — Sat, 28 Dec 2013 19:09:59 -0500

SSG Purham, I understand where you're going - developing control measures (through digital automation) to make Raters/Sr Raters do what they are supposed to already be doing.

I would agree with your suggestions and would implement in my Bn, but I don't have the automation or IT support necessary to support this.

It's hard enough just for my folks to get all the digital training done that is required, let alone the additional requirements that this would entail.

Less than 15% of my Bn have access to a computer on a regular basis, nor need it. There job is not in an office, it's out with their equipment and it's out there training.

And for those that do have access to a computer on a regular basis (myself included), on a weekly basis, there is some issue where I cannot complete digital training or get access to a .mil site because of software/system incompatibility or forced or unforced updates that change my configuration.

If we had reliable automation (I usually blame the NEC or TNOSC more than I should probably), then I would be for automating/digitizing more things.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2014 11:00 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 23:00:21 -0500

Eliminating the Excellent/Success/Needs Improvement check boxes and replacing with just "Performed at or above standard or performed below standard". Letting the bullets justify themselves rather than people focusing on overhyped excellents or underhyped successes if that makes sense. And of course eliminating the senior rater blocks as well and letting THOSE bullets speak for themselves. Sick of people saying 2/2 or 3/3 are career enders when they are supposed to be success.

A close second or tied for first would be I would eliminate the mandatory bullets in the NCOER. We have crippled the leadership section with generic or at best decent bullets about SHARP and usually units cripple R&A with stupid bullets about drug and alcohol incidents.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2014 11:50 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 23:50:21 -0500

I would have less narrative and more blocks like the Marine NCOER. They rate 1-10 on several qualities that are reviewed based on the raters average. So if my average rating is a 4 and I give you a 5 the board sees that as a +1, but if my average is 7 they see a -2.

We need more parts of the eval that can't be inflated. The issue with the narrative is a bunch of people who never met you will decide if you get promoted or not and they will base their decision on if you are "excellent" or "outstanding".

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2014 12:21 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:21:56 -0500

Although many of you PT lovers out there would disagree, in my opinion the PT block should be removed because it's the only block where one bullet automatically justifies you for an excellence as long as you meet 270 with 90 points etc. The other thing I disagree with is we are either one of three things, amongst the best 10%, fully capable 80%, or marginal 10% of the force. There's no in between being the best and being just successful. If I for example had all successes I would be fully capable, yet if I also had three excellent blocks but was being rated against three better NCOs by my Rater again I would be fully capable if my Rater truly rated me justly as not being in the top ten percent of my peers. All those old dinosaurs out there can tell you that NCOERs used to be narrative and there's a reason why it went to bullet format but even with bullet format it leaves the interpretation of what excellence really is to the Rater/ Senior Rater. Also, although I fully agree for the need to make it now mandatory to place SHARP bullets covering infractions I don't necessarily think it should be on our evaluations just in values and leadership on how we support the SHARP program in our units. The decision should be on where the Rater feels the Rated best supported the SHARP program be it competence, responsibility, or even physical fitness (mental).

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Mar 23 at 2014 12:33 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:33:55 -0400

Fix the rating scale. Give Officers 5 blocks.

Top block is limited to 10% of ratings (yeah, superstars are rare....)

Second block is limited to 10%.

Third block is limited to 60%

Fourth & Fifth blocks are 10% each.

When the profile is busted, everybody is center-mass, with a HRC "Profile is crap" stamp.

Yes, it's hard, but center-mass is where most people should spend most of their careers. It makes no sense for 49% to be "above center mass." It also gives all the "stellar performers" an unrealistic appraisal of their abilities, making it harder for them to know how to improve.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 6 at 2014 10:58 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 06 May 2014 10:58:18 -0400

I think we need to get rid of ratings and subjectivity period. Just a list of accomplishments and/or failings.

Instead of bullets like "SM is awesome" it needs to read more like "SM has accomplished XYZ" or "SM has failed to accomplish XYZ".

No opinions, just facts.

Response by CPT Brock Young made Jun 14 at 2021 7:24 PM

CPT Brock Young — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 19:24:18 -0400

Honestly, if you want to improve the system, there needs to be more accountability.
1) If a "leader" doesn't submit an eval within a timely manner, then THEIR eval should suffer. As a former S1, I can't tell you the number of top blocks I saw pass my desk, for officers and senior NCOs who themselves have dozens (in some cases) evals for subordinates that they haven't even started and are over 5 months or more late.
2) There should be a separate body that conducts quality review samplings. The number of "Did job" evals who then get top marks is crazy! Even with the multitude of training that says it will hurt the rated Soldier.
3) Make Senior raters accountable to protect the rated Soldiers. Toxic leaders still run rampant through the military (as of 2 months ago when I retired). One rater, be they incompetent, a bully, apathetic, incompetent, or some mixture, can hamper or destroy a rated officer or NCO's future within the service. When senior leaders fail to take action on things that are brought up (like EEO complaints, CAARNG....), and allow toxic O5s to move on to greener pastures without even being investigated, AFTER those same O5s were allowed to rate and destroy the careers of many officers and NCOs, the system is broken.

There's more, but I'll leave these 3 big ones here.