Posted on May 28, 2014
NCOER Issues: Current system problems and inherent issues with the proposed Future NCOER
45.5K
2
1
1
1
0
One of my fellow NCO's and I were having a conversation regarding NCOERs. This was started with his statement "I am getting a 2/1 and I feel disappointed with it."
This began a discussion regarding what ratings now appear as versus what they should. Below is how we believe the ratings should be translated:
1/1 – Pure awesome, Patton-esque leader of Soldiers
2/1 – Above average, potential for absolute excellence
2/2 – Above average, all around solid NCO
3/2 – Met standard, has potential to improve
3/3 – Met standard (average)
4/(anything) – Screwed up, needs to do some serious improvement (on borrowed time)
5/(anything) – Majorly screwed up, should be removed from service
This in comparison to how the ratings actually appear to be awarded:
1/1 – You rock (or you kiss 4th point of contact)
2/1 – You could be awesome, but…you’re not
2/2 – You didn’t try hard enough
3/2 – Life is rough and your NCOER reflects as much
3/3 – You slept through most days and are one step from the end of your career
4/(anything) – Screwed, awaiting separation (either at ETS or earlier)
5/(anything) – Severely screwed, likely already looking at outside employment or unemployment
The main point here, is that what should be the “Standard has been met” rating is viewed as teetering on the edge of oblivion. We recognize that is not how the NCOER ratings are intended to be interpreted, but it is true regardless.
We paired this with the proposed new system, where someone HAS to be the best and someone HAS to be the worst. This could be functionally achieved through one on one counseling with the senior rater. Take the various NCOs under his/her purview and rate them accordingly. Then inform those NCOs where they stand in the grand scheme. If it must go on the NCOER, it should be in the Senior Rater comments for the top tier as such “Rated NCO was ranked X amongst Y peers”
The idea that someone must be best and someone must be worst amongst peers is not functional in units that have few NCOs. If there are 12 NCOs separated as 4 SGTs, 4 SSGs and 4 SFCs, each group of 4 will have a best, second best, bad, and worst. If each group is high speed and hard charging, you have just given 2 of each group reason to either hate their peers or reconsider reenlistment. It is a serious disservice to the NCO corps.
Additionally, we discussed the lack of substance to Senior Rater comments. This was a general topic that we would enjoy some feedback on as well as any thoughts regarding current and future NCOERs.
This began a discussion regarding what ratings now appear as versus what they should. Below is how we believe the ratings should be translated:
1/1 – Pure awesome, Patton-esque leader of Soldiers
2/1 – Above average, potential for absolute excellence
2/2 – Above average, all around solid NCO
3/2 – Met standard, has potential to improve
3/3 – Met standard (average)
4/(anything) – Screwed up, needs to do some serious improvement (on borrowed time)
5/(anything) – Majorly screwed up, should be removed from service
This in comparison to how the ratings actually appear to be awarded:
1/1 – You rock (or you kiss 4th point of contact)
2/1 – You could be awesome, but…you’re not
2/2 – You didn’t try hard enough
3/2 – Life is rough and your NCOER reflects as much
3/3 – You slept through most days and are one step from the end of your career
4/(anything) – Screwed, awaiting separation (either at ETS or earlier)
5/(anything) – Severely screwed, likely already looking at outside employment or unemployment
The main point here, is that what should be the “Standard has been met” rating is viewed as teetering on the edge of oblivion. We recognize that is not how the NCOER ratings are intended to be interpreted, but it is true regardless.
We paired this with the proposed new system, where someone HAS to be the best and someone HAS to be the worst. This could be functionally achieved through one on one counseling with the senior rater. Take the various NCOs under his/her purview and rate them accordingly. Then inform those NCOs where they stand in the grand scheme. If it must go on the NCOER, it should be in the Senior Rater comments for the top tier as such “Rated NCO was ranked X amongst Y peers”
The idea that someone must be best and someone must be worst amongst peers is not functional in units that have few NCOs. If there are 12 NCOs separated as 4 SGTs, 4 SSGs and 4 SFCs, each group of 4 will have a best, second best, bad, and worst. If each group is high speed and hard charging, you have just given 2 of each group reason to either hate their peers or reconsider reenlistment. It is a serious disservice to the NCO corps.
Additionally, we discussed the lack of substance to Senior Rater comments. This was a general topic that we would enjoy some feedback on as well as any thoughts regarding current and future NCOERs.
Posted in these groups: 
NCOER
NCOER
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
I think the forced distribution for NCOER rater and senior rater profiles is the best part of the new NCOER. When 90% of NCOERs are getting 1/1 historically, promotion and selection boards can't tell who the best NCOs are for special duty and promotion. With the new NCOER, which goes live in September 2015, no more than 49% of a rater or senior rater profile will be able to get top block evaluations.
This means that the majority of NCOs will not get top block NCOERs, and there will need to be a major adjustment period for NCOs who have come to expect top block NCOERs regardless of performance. Just based on the 90% statistic (which I saw in Army Times, but can't find at the moment), most NCOs have gone their entire career getting top block reports, and have the perception that getting a non-top-block NCOER is a career killer. In the future, the majority (at least 51%) of NCOs will get non-top-block NCOERs. That's going to be a tough transition, I expect, for our most senior NCOs who until this point in their career have been told they are the best in the Army.
In the example you give of a profile of 4 E-5, 4 E-6, and 4 E-7, you're spot on--only one NCO from each rank is going to get a top block report (from the senior rater). But raters all get three "blanks" to pad their profile for each rank category, so, at the initial rating period at least, the rater would be able to give top block reports to 3 of 4 in each rank category. All NCOs and junior officers will need to learn "forced distribution math" to manage their profiles so that deserving performers get top block reports.
What usually happens for officers, noting that our OERs have had forced distribution for senior raters for decades, is that the rated officer is sort of treated like his/her own profile; for example, on a three-year assignment, most officers will get at least one not-top-block OER, to pad the senior rater's profile; most officers will get at least one top-block OER; and the best performers will get two top-block OERs. Rarely will an officer get three top block OERs in a three-year tour. For officers, the "heartbeat" pattern is the norm; "heartbeat" meaning that some OERs are top block, and some OERs aren't. The very top performers will have straight top block OERs; but this is rare; and it makes it easy for boards to tell who is actually a top performer. The normal officer will have a mix of top block and second block OERs. The worst performing officers will have no top block reports, and only second block (or lower) OERs. I've been told the distribution looks something like: 10% of officers have all top block OERs; 10% of officers have no top block OERs; and the 80% in the middle have a mix. I'd expect the same distribution for NCOs under the new system.
My second favorite part of the new evaluation system is that EES prevents, in theory, meddling from the chain-of-command in the rater's portion of the report; no more CSM edits to the rater's portion of the evaluation, no longer will the ratee be able to write their own evaluation. In theory, EES will also make raters and senior raters do their jobs, write evaluations, and counsel their subordinates. But I suspect EES won't change the system that greatly, and that a majority of units will just make folks submit paper copy evaluations through the chain of command to get around all the value that EES adds.
This means that the majority of NCOs will not get top block NCOERs, and there will need to be a major adjustment period for NCOs who have come to expect top block NCOERs regardless of performance. Just based on the 90% statistic (which I saw in Army Times, but can't find at the moment), most NCOs have gone their entire career getting top block reports, and have the perception that getting a non-top-block NCOER is a career killer. In the future, the majority (at least 51%) of NCOs will get non-top-block NCOERs. That's going to be a tough transition, I expect, for our most senior NCOs who until this point in their career have been told they are the best in the Army.
In the example you give of a profile of 4 E-5, 4 E-6, and 4 E-7, you're spot on--only one NCO from each rank is going to get a top block report (from the senior rater). But raters all get three "blanks" to pad their profile for each rank category, so, at the initial rating period at least, the rater would be able to give top block reports to 3 of 4 in each rank category. All NCOs and junior officers will need to learn "forced distribution math" to manage their profiles so that deserving performers get top block reports.
What usually happens for officers, noting that our OERs have had forced distribution for senior raters for decades, is that the rated officer is sort of treated like his/her own profile; for example, on a three-year assignment, most officers will get at least one not-top-block OER, to pad the senior rater's profile; most officers will get at least one top-block OER; and the best performers will get two top-block OERs. Rarely will an officer get three top block OERs in a three-year tour. For officers, the "heartbeat" pattern is the norm; "heartbeat" meaning that some OERs are top block, and some OERs aren't. The very top performers will have straight top block OERs; but this is rare; and it makes it easy for boards to tell who is actually a top performer. The normal officer will have a mix of top block and second block OERs. The worst performing officers will have no top block reports, and only second block (or lower) OERs. I've been told the distribution looks something like: 10% of officers have all top block OERs; 10% of officers have no top block OERs; and the 80% in the middle have a mix. I'd expect the same distribution for NCOs under the new system.
My second favorite part of the new evaluation system is that EES prevents, in theory, meddling from the chain-of-command in the rater's portion of the report; no more CSM edits to the rater's portion of the evaluation, no longer will the ratee be able to write their own evaluation. In theory, EES will also make raters and senior raters do their jobs, write evaluations, and counsel their subordinates. But I suspect EES won't change the system that greatly, and that a majority of units will just make folks submit paper copy evaluations through the chain of command to get around all the value that EES adds.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google