2
2
0
Any advice on this situation would be appreciated. I'm going to keep this as generic as possible. I'm currently reviewing an EPR where I am in the chain, but not the rater/additional rater (I'm a few steps below the Commander).
Case - member has a UIF, multiple LORs/LOCs, verbal counseling, etc. in his PIF for a couple different items. This is reflected by an assessment of "Does Not Meet" in Section III, Area 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing). The other areas are rated "Above Average" (I think one of those may be generous and am really leaning towards another being a "meets"). For anyone unfamiliar with Air Force EPRs, the other areas are 1 - Primary/Additional Duties; 3 - Fitness; 4 - Training Requirements; 5 - Teamwork/Followership; & 6 - Other Comments.
First I know this should automatically generate a referral EPR, since "Does Not Meet" was marked in one area.
AFI36-2406:
1.10.3. When to Refer a Performance Evaluation. Performance evaluations must be referred when:
1.10.3.3. An evaluator marks "Does Not Meet Standards" in Section III of the EPR.
Another section of the AFI also states:
3.1.8.2. The evaluation becomes a referral evaluation and must be referred IAW paragraph 1.10 if:
3.1.8.2.1. The ratee fails to meet standards in any one of the listed performance assessment factors in Section III, Performance Assessment. Note: A referral EPR may not have an overall assessment of "5".
Flip to the back side of the EPR & the rater/additional rater overall assessments are both an "Average - 3" (out of 5). I really can't see giving an overall rating of average if you received a "Does Not Meet" anywhere on the front of the EPR, but according to the AFI references above, it is allowable (heck, even an "Above Average - 4" is apparently allowable).
Talk me into/out of having a more lengthy discussion with the rater/additional rater about changing the overall assessment on this EPR to a 2 vs. a 3. I don’t think it’s going to fly up my chain as well and plan to advise the rater of that and hopefully save him the time/pain involved if higher ranking members in the chain review/chime in on the matter before the final draft is complete.
Also, I'm not sure how to reflect this on the EPR of the RATER in this case since I am also reviewing his at the same time. It almost calls into question how I should be rating him in leadership if I think he is being too soft on his airman.
Case - member has a UIF, multiple LORs/LOCs, verbal counseling, etc. in his PIF for a couple different items. This is reflected by an assessment of "Does Not Meet" in Section III, Area 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing). The other areas are rated "Above Average" (I think one of those may be generous and am really leaning towards another being a "meets"). For anyone unfamiliar with Air Force EPRs, the other areas are 1 - Primary/Additional Duties; 3 - Fitness; 4 - Training Requirements; 5 - Teamwork/Followership; & 6 - Other Comments.
First I know this should automatically generate a referral EPR, since "Does Not Meet" was marked in one area.
AFI36-2406:
1.10.3. When to Refer a Performance Evaluation. Performance evaluations must be referred when:
1.10.3.3. An evaluator marks "Does Not Meet Standards" in Section III of the EPR.
Another section of the AFI also states:
3.1.8.2. The evaluation becomes a referral evaluation and must be referred IAW paragraph 1.10 if:
3.1.8.2.1. The ratee fails to meet standards in any one of the listed performance assessment factors in Section III, Performance Assessment. Note: A referral EPR may not have an overall assessment of "5".
Flip to the back side of the EPR & the rater/additional rater overall assessments are both an "Average - 3" (out of 5). I really can't see giving an overall rating of average if you received a "Does Not Meet" anywhere on the front of the EPR, but according to the AFI references above, it is allowable (heck, even an "Above Average - 4" is apparently allowable).
Talk me into/out of having a more lengthy discussion with the rater/additional rater about changing the overall assessment on this EPR to a 2 vs. a 3. I don’t think it’s going to fly up my chain as well and plan to advise the rater of that and hopefully save him the time/pain involved if higher ranking members in the chain review/chime in on the matter before the final draft is complete.
Also, I'm not sure how to reflect this on the EPR of the RATER in this case since I am also reviewing his at the same time. It almost calls into question how I should be rating him in leadership if I think he is being too soft on his airman.
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 17
4
4
0
I don't see how this is all that tough. A "2" is appropriate with the outlined paperwork...Average "3" Airmen do not require this much paperwork to keep behavior in line with standards. I don't have the EPR in front of me but I believe "2" Airmen "need improvement", definitely appropriate here. My advice, write the "2" to send a message to both the Amn and your squadron...Amn talk and the will quickly learn that leadership believes and is not scared to hold folks accountable...BTW, make sure your Shirt is involved. I would also be prepared to go with NJP, you guys are very close to this step on the progressive discipline continuum. Lastly, the Enlisted Force Structure says jr. Amn most conform to military life (paraphrasing)...if supervision and the chain is actively involved, the "2" EPR is the appropriate reflection of performance or lack there of. VR,
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
As a personnelist I agree with the majority of the comments...;however, no one can force or improperly pressure the rater to change his/her rating. The additional rater or commander can disagree and document it per the Afi but the rating is the raters decision (for epr points it is the additional raters number that counts anyway).
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Realize that a 2 EPR does not take him out of the running, because a referral EPR makes him ineligible to test, so with the new system its only his EPRs since he was eligible to test that count, so the 2 may never see the light of day.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google