Proper evaluations, are we doing this?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:26:26 -0500

Have you ever given someone a NCOER/OER that they weren't deserving of only because you didn't want to hurt their career? I get questioned a lot about why I give 2/2's when they're a very good NCO's, whereas their peers in other units who are substandard performers are getting a better eval. It is a hard balance because you don't want to affect their career by putting them behind their peers but on the other hand you have to be honest about how we evaluate our NCO's and Officers. I know how I operate, what are your thoughts on this?

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Nov 7 at 2013 11:33 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:33:07 -0500

The evaluations will never be done correctly.  Everyone who writes them are out to give their people an edge and will over inflate the marks.  How do you fix this?  I doubt that you will ever to fix the problem until you take the human factor out of it and that will never happen.<br>

Response by CMC Robert Young made Nov 7 at 2013 11:46 AM

CMC Robert Young — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:46:58 -0500

1SG, I had an occasion several years ago that illustrates your point. I had an E6 who was evaluated and recommended for participation in the E7 advancement exam process (SWE). It was clear to me that he did not meet the standards of performance required to become an E7 on the off chance that he rated high enough against his peer group scheduled for the SWE that fall. I declined to endorse his request for participation in the SWE, and counseled his direct supervisor as to the specifics offering some constructive input as to needed changes. The command backed my decision. Case closed......so I thought.

The following evaluation cycle, his supervisor recommended him for participation in the SWE despite no improvement in his performance, and once again, I declined to endorse the recommendation based on the same solid facts as the previous year. The command overruled me this time saying that we had hurt his career, and by holding our recommendation for a second year, we would significantly damage his career long term. He had apparently served his punishment by not advancing during the previous cycle, and he was now "entitled" to compete in the process. As fate would have it, a weak field overall pushed his final multiple (line score) to near the top and he advanced to E7 where he promptly imploded.

We do our people and the organization a disservice if we don't evaluate people fairly, and hold them accountable. The organization suffers because the best candidates don't necessarily get the positions they should, and members who benefit from a fluffed up evaluation more often than not don't have the skills to perform the job they inherit.

Thanks for letting me rant.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2013 12:14 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:14:12 -0500

Top, I don't think the system will ever be perfect which is frustrating for everyone. I saw an OER where a fellow, lazy LT got the same exact evaluation as a LT who puts in 110% effort at all times. I also believe that not enough leaders/raters are utilizing the NCOER support form to do their initial, later, later, later counselings. If we utilized it, not only will it be easy to generate the NCOER on MyForms, but it will also give them guidance on how to exceed the standard and what to work on.

Response by CSM Mike Maynard made Nov 7 at 2013 6:14 PM

CSM Mike Maynard — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:14:26 -0500

I have been seeing the exact same thing for quite a while. But now I'm in a position to affect this and do the right thing. We're spending quite a bit of time "re-calibrating" everyone on what Excellence and Success mean. If you have failed to maintain an Army standard during your evaluation period - you are a Needs Improvement. If you are currently failing an Army standard, you are a Needs Much Improvement. It's not about whether you finally met the standard on the last day of your rating period, the evaluation is for the whole rating period. Additionally, hard to say you are "Among the Best" if you have failed to maintain the Army standard - APFT, Art 15, ABCP, Wpns Qual, etc. As far as the Senior Rater portion, everyone can't be a 1/1. Just not possible. Officers have a system/process in place that only allows them to give "Above Center of Mass" to a certain percentage. We too should be honest enough to rate only those folks that are our top performers as 1/1 and use the 2 and 3 blocks appropriately to help them focus on those areas they need to improve in and help make it clear to the board who the top performers are by saving the 1/1s for only the very best.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2013 6:59 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:59:27 -0500

I definitely have. I did this because the rating and reviewing chain made it understood that a failure to change my evaluation would reflect on my own upcoming evaluation.
The problem is that a good, honest, and dedicated rater will give the rated NCO a fair rating. Maybe the same NCO will do the same to his/her rated NCOs. Those honest NCOs are going to have a harder time achieving positions of authority and influence.

I was disappointed by the new NCOER that's supposed to come out because it still uses point scores. Make the whole thing a short narrative of what was accomplished and what this NCO does.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2013 7:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 19:47:58 -0500

NO 1SG, we are NOT. If your CoC has removed 4 Soldiers from under you, but you have 1/1 and amongst the best (I just saw this happen) then WE are doing a GRAVE injustice to fellow NCOs, the Soldiers and the Army period. That's how we get toxic leadership at the top, because no one saw fit to provide the proper NCOER or the correct mentorship. For some I've seen them "give" the great NCOER just to move the NCO on. I've heard it said "well, we don't wanna mess up someone's career." I guess I wonder how does it feel when the leader has provided these erroneous NCOERs and then sees that rated NCO on the front page of the Army Times or the local paper for inappropriate behavior or actions regarding our Soldiers.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2013 9:44 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:44:16 -0500

I honestly like the OER system now that I have become more familiar with it here at OCS. I like the fact that if you have 4 Squad Leaders that you rate, you could rank them from 1 to 4 and that would show a board that in a Platoon, said individual was only the 3rd or 4th best Squad Leader. It's still not a perfect system by any means, but much better than the NCOER system in my opinion.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2013 12:16 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 00:16:35 -0500

the short answer, 1SG, is no.

Have I personally given NCOs higher ratings than they deserve, maybe... I can't really say for sure. But, primarily as a rater, my excellence vs sucess vs needs improvement (some OR much) ratio is probably a little more balanced than many. I make a recommendation to the senior rater, but usually see 1/1 on most NCOERs.

I have been in the position to senior rate some SGTs (notice the difference in title), both recieved 4/5 ratings. One ended up being sent back from HRC for rater/senior rater evalations not matching. I told the rater that he could downgrade some of his successes, considering how poorly the SGT had performed over the rating period. In the end, I still refused to change my rating, so the reviewer was forced to submit a MFR along with the NCOER.

On the other hand, I have been "directed" before to change my rating because "you can't do that to his career". My response to the 1SG that had told me to change how I had rated my NCO on their NCOER, "1SG, IAW AR 623-3 you may review my NCOER for grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, but nobody is authorized to tell me what to write... I am not doing anything to that NCO's career, their performance and refusal to fulfill their responsibilities is what will be affecting their career"

Rate fairly and stick behind what you write on the NCOER, but make sure you back it up with regular counseling. If it's not on paper prior to the end of the rating period, it doesn't count.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 9 at 2013 9:59 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 09:59:21 -0500

1SG, That is very unfortunate to boost an NCO's career and they don't deserve it. They only get in the way for true performers.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2013 11:17 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:17:02 -0500

Since I have been a NCO I have seen an unjust and unfair system play out. Many times unsat performance is brushed aside because the rater is their friend. I have seen the other side also. The system is broken. It is not a fair way to evaluate the performance of a NCO. There is too much bias, personal feelings and unjust actions going on.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2013 3:37 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:37:14 -0500

Bring back the SQT! That's right, not only promote on the existing criteria, but also bring back the remaining 200 points and ensure that all personnel seeking promotion are well versed in their MOS.

Currently, your knowledge of your main job in the Army bears no relevance on your ablilty to get promoted. I work in a dangerous MOS, around high voltage electricity, and a significant number of personnel are dangerously underqualified. It is literally a matter of life and death, as an incorrect connection will kill someone. But, instead of being promoted on knowledge, or even a hands on exam, they are promoted based soley on their ablilty to shoot, do PT, and complete some form of education which is not required to be in their field.

Response by SSG Lisa Rendina made Nov 12 at 2013 11:28 PM

SSG Lisa Rendina — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:28:46 -0500

I worked for a CSM once that stated "If you are not rating your NCOs 1/1 how can you expect to be rated a 1/1?" While not everyone can honestly be a 1/1 NCO, that guidance stuck with me. If I am giving a less-than-stellar NCOER to a subordinate then I must be failing that NCO in leadership and training. It's too bad more NCOs do not think this way.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2013 10:35 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:35:26 -0500

1SG, unfortunately, I have seen many times where the evaluations process is broken. The Army definitely needs to figure out a better way. Just recently I saw an NCO who had seriously messed up and was removed from his position, but was given the same scores on his evaluation as the NCOs who excelled. The reason given was because if he was given the scores he should have received it would look as if he was being targeted. I am sorry, but if I messed up and was removed from my position, I would expect my NCOER to reflect that. However, it should go the same way for the opposite. If an NCO is excelling, his NCOER should reflect that. Sadly, I see a lot of Raters who as you stated don't want to affect someones career, but if they aren't performing up to standard, then they shouldn't be in that job.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2014 10:27 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:27:01 -0500

1SG, I would to like to clarify something you said, " I get questioned a lot about why I give 2/2's when they're a very good NCO's, whereas their peers in other units who are substandard performers are getting a better eval."

I think what you meant to say was, " I get questeioned a lot about why my NCOs only earned a 2/2 when they're a very good NCO, whereas their peers in other units who are substandard performers are getting a better eval."

Don't want people to think the NCOER is a personal thing where you decide what they get.

Response by SFC James Welch made May 21 at 2020 5:31 PM

SFC James Welch — Thu, 21 May 2020 17:31:30 -0400

No, but all EERs were inflated because if you rated totally fair, careers would have been lost.