New SHARP requirements for evaluations; needed or not?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:51:27 -0400

For those of you not tracking a new MILPER message 13-306 puts a requirement on all evaluations; OERs, NCOERs, and 1059s from NCOES schools. Raters will now be required to put a bullet regarding how the rater officer or NCO fosters the SHARP program. The message says "EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 2013 OFFICERS AND NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS (NCOS) WILL
HAVE ESTABLISHED GOALS AND WILL BE ASSESSED ON HOW THE RATED SOLDIER MEETS THE
COMMITMENTS OF FOSTERING CLIMATES OF DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND ON ADHERING TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT RESPONSE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM IN
THEIR DAILY ACTIVITIES." It states in the MILPER message exactly where you will place the assessment. If the rated Soldier does not follow the SHARP program by violating it or not properly reporting it; then it will be stated on the evaluation. If they have not violated the policy in any way then you have to assess how well they foster the SHARP program in a specific bullet.My question is: Do you think that this is something that is needed on our evaluations? With all the issues the military has with sexual harassment is it something that needs to be specifically commented on for every leader on every evaluation or is it overkill?

Response by CW3(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2013 11:13 PM

CW3(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:13:11 -0400

You would think that SHARP could be covered under the Army values block of both the NCOER and OER. It was definitely not part of the 1059 in the past. Personally I think its overkill and will defiantly be used for as a discriminator for promotions and downsizing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2013 4:26 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:26:38 -0400

While I do not necessarily agree that it is the "Right" Answer, I do think it is a start. We as leaders at all levels need to do a better job of ensuring an environment that is not tolerant of sexual harassment and behaviors that condone general sexual misconduct (Statements, Jokes, etc..) as a SHARP myself I believe this will be too easy to satisfy. With or without, I know that I do my part. We are supposed to be brothers and sisters here, yet leaders continue to allow people to talk about brothers and sisters in arms when they would kick someone in the teeth if they were blood relatives... So, it is a start, the right way? Probably not.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2013 7:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:03:10 -0400

Definitely overkill, I am a certified sharp representative. I think, that since the program is mostly perception based there is no baseline to grade by.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2013 8:17 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:17:44 -0400

No.  As my BN's NCOER clerk in the BN S-1, I see all the NCOERs that are processed in my BN.   I have already begun seeing cookie-cutter SHARP bullets that mean nothing, and are virtually the same on everyone's NCOER.  This requirement only wastes space on the NCOER, and prevents other better more valuable bullets from being included on the evaluation. If an NCO has a "Yes" under "Respect" in Part IV, then it's already covered.   No one not found guilty of sexual harassment/assault is going to have anything negative on his/her evaluation, so why do we need to have a bullet saying something that has already been said. Big Army should have thought this out better.  Or at all.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2013 8:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:57:15 -0400

I personally think it is overkill. The 7 Army Values cover anything you would need to say about an NCO or Officer on an evaluation. I understand that the Army is concerned over the number of sexual assaults, and rightly so, however, there are better ways to go about fostering a zero tolerance climate within the ranks. Leadership need to get back after it. I know, all of the leaders are saying "I AM getting after it". I'm sure that many are, but here's the real question: Do you as a leader lead by example, live the values, actual preform checks on your Soldiers? Or, are you just checking the block. We leaders have moved away from daily barracks checks, conducting a nightly leader presence walk through and other "old school" preventative measures that we used to do before the wars started. WE, the Army as a whole, let our standards drop and we are paying the price. As an NCO, I can only say to my peers and Jr Leaders, "the accomplishment of my mission and the welfare of my Soldiers", take it literally and we won't fail and this problem, like many past problems will be solved.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2013 9:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 21:03:42 -0400

Just like everyone else has said, Overkill. Should we have a spot for AER? CFC? BOSS? Where does it end, why doesn't EO get one also?

We need to let evaluations focus on the person as an army professional. If their conduct is unprofessional, let the report bear that out, but to focus on one specific program because its the buzz word of the day is the wrong answer.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2013 3:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:40:14 -0400

As my BN's lead VA, I have the following perspective. First, I think it's a good idea to make evaluation reports reflect what leaders are DOING to foster a harassment and assault free environment AND an environment where victims (or potential victims) feel comfortable enough with their leaders to report things that aren't right. As many of you said, people should be willing to speak up and DO something but the fact is, many people are not. For some reason, it still costs Soldiers social capital to be "that guy" or "that girl" that speaks up. Second, because this is not truly a once a quarter issue, I think it's important to encourage leaders to look for those opportunities to make it clear what right looks like and to model the behavior they want their Soldiers to emulate. Too many people only talk about SHARP issues during training or when something bad happens. It's an every day problem so the activity to address it needs to happen every day as a result.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2013 9:07 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:07:41 -0400

I am sick of the social engineering.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2013 3:40 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:40:58 -0500

This is punishement solely for reasons of Senior personnel not keeping their own hands to themselves. As media portrays it is not the subordinate ranking structure with all the harrassment and inappropriate behavior. It the Senior Superiors misconducting themselves. Patting themselves on the back job well done welcome to full retirement on the tax payers budget. America has sent a toxic message if you are Senior ranking and inappropriate your quietly retired and reprimanded. If your a younger less ranked member of the services your reward is jail or prison time. SO is it fair or appropriate for a SHARP block in the NCOER hell no what would be apropriate in its place. A mandatory FTX style block showing engagement with subordinates on a COLD WAR level taking them out of the work area and injecting positive training applicable to the future wars.... that is what the focus should be.... THE JCS already said the behavior is inappropriate and not tolerable for any reason ZERO TOLERANC IS ZERO TOLERANCE i do not need to be rated for it nor should I be subjected to more watered down mandatory trainings that the accused way above my pay grade is responsible for doing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2013 6:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:51:56 -0500

I don't think SHARP bullets should be a recommended part of the NCOER. I've seen plenty of copy/paste bullets for these evaluations. SHARP bullets will just be the same and have no meaning or value.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 7 at 2013 2:08 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:08:34 -0500

Here's the problem, you can be dealing with SHARP in a confidential way to protect soldiers. Thats something that doesnt need to be common knowledge by everyone let alone every single person who needlessly sees my NCOER.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Nov 7 at 2013 3:16 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:16:21 -0500

I appreciate the Army's effort with this, but unfortunately I think it's another disappointing attempt to prevent sexual harassment/assault. I've always wondered why the Army doesn't just ask soldiers what works and what doesn't.

Response by CPT Laurie H. made Nov 7 at 2013 4:03 PM

CPT Laurie H. — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:03:57 -0500

Mandating a SHARP bullet on all evaluations is overkill and like most everyone has pointed out, it will become a copy/paste practice that just takes up space. If the rated Soldier has violated SHARP, well, that should be noted in the Army Values section.

If the Army wants to encourage raters to think about their rated Soldiers in this respect it would be much more effective to promote including a SHARP bullet for individuals who go above and beyond in fostering a climate of dignity and respect, but not to mandate it for everyone. This way indivuals who do go out of their way to promote the program will still be recognized, which I believe constitutes much of the Army's intention with this MILPER.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2013 1:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 01:03:29 -0500

Well one would hope that it would remind everyone that enforcing a climate of professionalism in the work place, correcting inappropriate "Jokes and statements", and ensuring the intent is met. What should happen and what could happy are obviously separate issues. Will it likely become a fluff bullet, probably. Should it, absolutely not. I think part of the problem is there are too many NCO's who don't take it seriously and may not see it as a serious problem, because the music we listen too, the TV that is watched all have an effect on how we see day to day conversations and perspectives. We need to flush that from our system and remember just because it's popular in society today, doesn't mean that its the right example to live and lead by.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2013 12:31 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:31:01 -0500

I agree, with the fact that it should not be a every quarter issue. Leaders are to be every day Leaders, making on the spot corrections. for the subject of SHARP leaders are to make on the spot decisions on how to make their soldiers feel as if they should have no problem coming to them with an issue. Leaders should be able to accept any issue at any time and be able to either resolve that issue or find someone who can help resolve that issue. SHARP issues can happen at any time, if you have an issue don't wait to bring it up at training, bring it up right away and get the issue to the right people who can solve it.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 9:35 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:35:54 -0500

SHARP Comments must now be added to our 1059's at WLC.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 3:39 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:39:32 -0500

Seems like standard knee jerk over-reaction in the wrong direction.

You are right SFC Todd, this will become fluff, because as I have said 100 times, this is not leader engagement. It's just creating another box to check, fire and forget style.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2013 12:11 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:11:05 -0500

SHARP is coming from liberal elements deeply embedded in the culture of the White House. IMHO>

Response by SPC Mikki Ekanger made Apr 14 at 2014 10:03 AM

SPC Mikki Ekanger — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:03:29 -0400

I do think our leadership needs additional training in this area. I was involved in a situation where a female soldier decided to pinch my ass and put her hands on me. I've always been of the school of thought that if I can't do it to you, you for damn sure can't do it to me. This situation had gotten worse over the month and I requested to speak with someone to do a restricted reporting. I was told by 2 E-7s that I didn't know what I was talking about. I knew what I was talking about and I'd addressed the issue to both of the E-7s wondering what was being done. Nothing had been done to talk to her or to address the issue. Instead one of the E-7s had forced me into an unrestricted reporting which created a lot more hell for me. As a male solder I immediately was labeled as "Gay" because I should have wanted to have sex with her. I didn't find her attractive and I had seen other behaviors from her that led me to be concerned about if we had done something she'd likely report me. She was bad news all around. In saying that even my leadership handled me different. I faced covert harassment for the remainder of my tour.

I later saw one of the E-6s in my platoon discussing the matter (Without saying names) but with me sitting right next to him, to someone that was outside of this situation. That soldier made it a point to say that "he must be gay if he didn't want to hit that. She's easy." Needless to say I made a decision that day, Unless I genuinely knew my leaders well, I won't trust them. If I'm in that situation again I'll not say anything because I had witnessed first hand my leaders turn on me for not wanting to be touched in a sexual manner at the workplace. Yes our leaders need training in this area. I learned from this experience why men don't report.