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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
0
0
0
Sir, I don't envy your position. It's hard enough as a direct supervisor to summarize your airman's life into an EPR, seeing every day the struggles they've overcome, the exceptional performance, the hiccups... and trying to cram that into an AF Form with "action, impact and result!"
From what I've seen as an NCO, the most important factor that seems to be easily overlooked is CONSISTENCY! If you want to be involved in the process, be involved with everyone whose EPR is in your chain. Talk to all of the raters if you have questions, comments or concerns about why they rated the way they did, and keep the same standards regardless of the inevitable popularity contest that arises when you have similar scenarios, but one airman is better liked in their shop.
Lastly, I think it's a mistake to perpetuate the "one mistake and you're done" mentality. Generally speaking of course, I knew some great Chiefs and leaders when I initially joined who made some pretty sizable mistakes (that would have ended their careers earlier on these days), but they had that as a tool to relate with the up and coming airmen and mentor them into productive members of the service.
From what I've seen as an NCO, the most important factor that seems to be easily overlooked is CONSISTENCY! If you want to be involved in the process, be involved with everyone whose EPR is in your chain. Talk to all of the raters if you have questions, comments or concerns about why they rated the way they did, and keep the same standards regardless of the inevitable popularity contest that arises when you have similar scenarios, but one airman is better liked in their shop.
Lastly, I think it's a mistake to perpetuate the "one mistake and you're done" mentality. Generally speaking of course, I knew some great Chiefs and leaders when I initially joined who made some pretty sizable mistakes (that would have ended their careers earlier on these days), but they had that as a tool to relate with the up and coming airmen and mentor them into productive members of the service.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It almost sounds to me that this A1C is TRYING to get a discharge. We had a similar AB that made Airman then made it back to AB. Plenty of time being late, lying to an NCO/Section Commander/1SGT, repeatedly not meeting basic standards. Multiple Verbal counseling sessions, 3 page MFR, LOC, LOA, LOR, UIF, LOR, Art15, Art 15 Discharge. Having worked with him as his trainer and what not (never officially his rater but relied upon similarly). He couldn't accomplish basic tasks his peers came in and quickly learned, didn't take advice or direction at all. I left the organization prior to his UIF and beyond but stayed in contact to try to help him remove his head from his rectum as well help the other new airmen ( Airman of Qtr, Airman of Year, Accepted to the Academy, and 1 other that was kind of just there). From this experience his actions and performance showed he did not want to be in the AF although his words said he did. Me and another NCO sat down with him to try and get to the bottom of his behavior and even asked him if he actually wanted to be in, or if it wasn't how he thought it would be and wanted to move on with it and that we could work with him and leadership and help him with whatever direction he wanted to go. Talking with his (our ratoer/supervisor) MSgt he would have clearly been a 2. I hope this may be helpful as we are also an Acquisition unit and had a similar troop.
Like others have said talk with the rater to see where he is coming from and just by talking and letting him know that you have his back on whatever decision he feels to rate this young airman. I know if I have the top cover from my leadership on these decisions and they explain their positions and I can take from their experience it would make me feel way more confident. But I personally would feel with the amount of paperwork and disciplinary action and how far down he/she is on the line of acceptability that it would definitely warrant a 2 on the EPR. Good luck and hopefully your SrA realizes that he/she is not giving the rating but the A1C is only earning it.
Like others have said talk with the rater to see where he is coming from and just by talking and letting him know that you have his back on whatever decision he feels to rate this young airman. I know if I have the top cover from my leadership on these decisions and they explain their positions and I can take from their experience it would make me feel way more confident. But I personally would feel with the amount of paperwork and disciplinary action and how far down he/she is on the line of acceptability that it would definitely warrant a 2 on the EPR. Good luck and hopefully your SrA realizes that he/she is not giving the rating but the A1C is only earning it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I understand my previous comment was likely not well-received so not that I'm back at my desk,
AFI 36-2406, para 1.5.1.2.3: For AB through TSgt, no more than two evaluators (the rater and additional rater) will evaluate the ratee's performance.
Paragraph 1.6 lists the responsibilities of the only people in the chain that should be involved with an EPR/OPR. 1.6.1: Commander, 1.6.2: General Evaluator/Reviewer (general evaluators/reviewers do administrative reviews only), 1.6.3: Rater, 1.6.5: Additional Rater, 1.6.5: Reviewer/Senior Rater/Final Evaluator (only applies to SNCOs and officers), 1.6.6: First Sergeant, 1.6.7: Unit Commander (the ONLY person listed in the chain that has the duty to return an evaluation for reconsideration), 1.6.8 Functional Examiner, Acquisition Examiner, and Air Force Advisor, 1.6.9: Ratee then it's the base MPS, MAJCOM, and up.
I completely understand wanting to make sure our people are rated fairly and that we aren't inflate reports. I also agree 100% with the rating of a 2. My only issue was how it was all handled. Far too many people were involved in the process that simply had no business being involved. If the airmen went to EO with a complaint the meeting that was had to change the rating would be enough to get the EPR removed if everyone involved was honest and said that the rater had submitted the ratee as a 3, not a 2.
AFI 36-2406, para 1.5.1.2.3: For AB through TSgt, no more than two evaluators (the rater and additional rater) will evaluate the ratee's performance.
Paragraph 1.6 lists the responsibilities of the only people in the chain that should be involved with an EPR/OPR. 1.6.1: Commander, 1.6.2: General Evaluator/Reviewer (general evaluators/reviewers do administrative reviews only), 1.6.3: Rater, 1.6.5: Additional Rater, 1.6.5: Reviewer/Senior Rater/Final Evaluator (only applies to SNCOs and officers), 1.6.6: First Sergeant, 1.6.7: Unit Commander (the ONLY person listed in the chain that has the duty to return an evaluation for reconsideration), 1.6.8 Functional Examiner, Acquisition Examiner, and Air Force Advisor, 1.6.9: Ratee then it's the base MPS, MAJCOM, and up.
I completely understand wanting to make sure our people are rated fairly and that we aren't inflate reports. I also agree 100% with the rating of a 2. My only issue was how it was all handled. Far too many people were involved in the process that simply had no business being involved. If the airmen went to EO with a complaint the meeting that was had to change the rating would be enough to get the EPR removed if everyone involved was honest and said that the rater had submitted the ratee as a 3, not a 2.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The short answer is is isn't YOUR assessment to make, sir, it's the rater's. You can disagree with all day long but at the end of the day it isn't up to you. NO ONE should be influencing the rater's rating. No one should even be talking to him about changing his rating. The additional rater and the CC can non-concur, but there should not be any dialogue with the rater about his rating. Also, as an officer that isn't in the rating chain, how do you even have visibility? It should go rater, additional rater, maybe the section super (which I disagree with as well but some units do this), First Sergeant, squadron super, commander. Unless there is an officer directly in the chain, no officer should even see it other than the commander. Just like an officer's report shouldn't go through the squadron super.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
I understand my previous comment was likely not well-received so not that I'm back at my desk,
AFI 36-2406, para 1.5.1.2.3: For AB through TSgt, no more than two evaluators (the rater and additional rater) will evaluate the ratee's performance.
Paragraph 1.6 lists the responsibilities of the only people in the chain that should be involved with an EPR/OPR. 1.6.1: Commander, 1.6.2: General Evaluator/Reviewer (general evaluators/reviewers do administrative reviews only), 1.6.3: Rater, 1.6.5: Additional Rater, 1.6.5: Reviewer/Senior Rater/Final Evaluator (only applies to SNCOs and officers), 1.6.6: First Sergeant, 1.6.7: Unit Commander (the ONLY person listed in the chain that has the duty to return an evaluation for reconsideration), 1.6.8 Functional Examiner, Acquisition Examiner, and Air Force Advisor, 1.6.9: Ratee then it's the base MPS, MAJCOM, and up.
I completely understand wanting to make sure our people are rated fairly and that we aren't inflate reports. I also agree 100% with the rating of a 2. My only issue was how it was all handled. Far too many people were involved in the process that simply had no business being involved. If the airmen went to EO with a complaint the meeting that was had to change the rating would be enough to get the EPR removed if everyone involved was honest and said that the rater had submitted the ratee as a 3, not a 2.
AFI 36-2406, para 1.5.1.2.3: For AB through TSgt, no more than two evaluators (the rater and additional rater) will evaluate the ratee's performance.
Paragraph 1.6 lists the responsibilities of the only people in the chain that should be involved with an EPR/OPR. 1.6.1: Commander, 1.6.2: General Evaluator/Reviewer (general evaluators/reviewers do administrative reviews only), 1.6.3: Rater, 1.6.5: Additional Rater, 1.6.5: Reviewer/Senior Rater/Final Evaluator (only applies to SNCOs and officers), 1.6.6: First Sergeant, 1.6.7: Unit Commander (the ONLY person listed in the chain that has the duty to return an evaluation for reconsideration), 1.6.8 Functional Examiner, Acquisition Examiner, and Air Force Advisor, 1.6.9: Ratee then it's the base MPS, MAJCOM, and up.
I completely understand wanting to make sure our people are rated fairly and that we aren't inflate reports. I also agree 100% with the rating of a 2. My only issue was how it was all handled. Far too many people were involved in the process that simply had no business being involved. If the airmen went to EO with a complaint the meeting that was had to change the rating would be enough to get the EPR removed if everyone involved was honest and said that the rater had submitted the ratee as a 3, not a 2.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm prior enlisted and know that you have to balance the senior enlisted expectations with your officer chain of command. Your rater may not have leadership issues, but may have a SNCO expecting some "softness." It's frustrating when you see things one way, but everyone else has a different perspective. SNCOs may have a greater depth and breadth and want to "temper" the rating based on other enlisted in the career field. You may be looking at the individual, possibly comparing to his peers in the unit. The top SNCOs maybe looking from a MAJCOM or career field-wide perspective. Give the rater your feedback and ask for his in return. It may be that he agrees with you, but is stuck between your assessment and pressure from some MSgt - Chief.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
An overall 3 should effectively end his career, which in my opinion is well past due.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Why? Under the EPR system a 3 is an average airman. While not a stellar performer, a 3 airman is meeting standards. The EPR system has gotten as completely inflated and the APR system it replaced. That said, what have you done lately to help a 3 airman become a 4 or 5?
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Maj Matt Hylton, Ok this is a bit tricky, before the new AFI, I have personally seen referral "5" EPRs.
Referral 4 is the current highest rating allowed under the current guidance. Without knowing what the specifics are, it is hard to know what really give you guidance on but here is a fairly good yard stick that works well.
If their "EPR" would be a "5" before whatever is causing it to be a referral happened then it should now be a referral "4" provided that the work level hasn't changed. (adjust the numbers accordingly).
Examples:
Airman Snuffy is an outstanding troop and fail is a "5" but got a DUI and a UIF/Art15. They are now a Referral 4.
TSgt Jones is a so-so NCO and comes to work and does what need to be done. They are a solid "4". They then fail their PT Test. Now they are a Referral 3.
If you want to talk specifics, hit me up via PM here or via the GAL @barksdale.
Referral 4 is the current highest rating allowed under the current guidance. Without knowing what the specifics are, it is hard to know what really give you guidance on but here is a fairly good yard stick that works well.
If their "EPR" would be a "5" before whatever is causing it to be a referral happened then it should now be a referral "4" provided that the work level hasn't changed. (adjust the numbers accordingly).
Examples:
Airman Snuffy is an outstanding troop and fail is a "5" but got a DUI and a UIF/Art15. They are now a Referral 4.
TSgt Jones is a so-so NCO and comes to work and does what need to be done. They are a solid "4". They then fail their PT Test. Now they are a Referral 3.
If you want to talk specifics, hit me up via PM here or via the GAL @barksdale.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
One mistake should not automatically make a report a referral. Remember that the EPR is supposed to be a look at their usual and overall performance. Granted, there are things that will automatically make a report a referral, but one mistake in an otherwise stellar evaluation period should not warrant a referral.
(0)
(0)
Maj Matt Hylton
MSgt (Join to see) it was not one mistake that made it a referral - it was multiple mistakes of same nature that resulted in multiple levels of counseling / paperwork.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
My apologies again, sir. That reply was specifically about MSgt Copeland's comment about referrals and not the topic at hand. I apologize for the confusion.
I agree 100% that the ratee in question had ongoing issues and that a rating of 2 was warranted.
I agree 100% that the ratee in question had ongoing issues and that a rating of 2 was warranted.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google