Posted on Aug 5, 2024
Should I submit a letter to the President of the Board for an NCOER that says Met Standard and Qualified, but has negative bullet comments?
8.38K
16
8
5
5
0
I received a NCOER with a No GO in character for failing to uphold duty in army values. However the bullet just says failed to uphold values and in my achieves block it say I loss some equipment.
Should I submit a letter to the president of the board informing them my No Go is tied to the loss of that equipment? The eval was still a “Met Standard” and Qualified. I already received another one as well that was Exceeded Standard and HQ.
I know I’ll have to get at least 3 evals to even bounce back from this crappy one and don’t expect to pick up for another two years if at all. Thanks
Should I submit a letter to the president of the board informing them my No Go is tied to the loss of that equipment? The eval was still a “Met Standard” and Qualified. I already received another one as well that was Exceeded Standard and HQ.
I know I’ll have to get at least 3 evals to even bounce back from this crappy one and don’t expect to pick up for another two years if at all. Thanks
MSG Board
NCOER
Board Member
Promotion Board
Posted 4 mo ago
Responses: 4
7
7
0
MSG (Join to see), I would not recommend it.
A letter to the president of a centralized promotion board is your opportunity to clarify discrepancies in the record such as missing evaluations, missing awards, incorrect information on the SRB. In most cases, if the missing or discrepancy hurts the record you should fix it prior to the cutoff date.
Letters to the President are not the venue to contest evaluation reports. Evaluations could be the subject of a letter if there is a mismatch between the Duty Title and Duty Description, incorrect height and/or weight (not a justification for being overweight), rating chain errors (although this would only be applicable for a CTR report).
What are all the comments under "Character" (if you want to disclose)? Comments are not mandatory for a rating of "Did Not Meet Standard" (DMS). BUT: "Special care will be taken to ensure specific bullet comments support appropriate “Far Exceeded Standard,” “Exceeded Standard,” “Met Standard,” and “Did Not Meet Standard” ratings in corresponding blocks". You can suggest they "meant" you did not meet the standard for Character specifically for missing equipment, but the justification for the DMS should be in the same block, not under "Achieves".
You can write the letter, but if I was reviewing it, it would be tough to take the assertion at "face value", especially if you signed it and there are other derogatory comments in "Character". If there are no specific derogatory comments under "Character", it probably won't matter to the board anyway. I know I never look at the actual rating, I look at the comments and if the comments don't actually say anything, I kinda dismiss the whole comment. If you failed to "uphold Army Values", I want to know specifically why, otherwise I chalk it up to a lazy rater there is enough room to elucidate IAW regs. This is a detriment, because you need every comment possible to lay out your performance for the year. I would raise my eyebrow at a MSG losing equipment though.
A letter to the president of a centralized promotion board is your opportunity to clarify discrepancies in the record such as missing evaluations, missing awards, incorrect information on the SRB. In most cases, if the missing or discrepancy hurts the record you should fix it prior to the cutoff date.
Letters to the President are not the venue to contest evaluation reports. Evaluations could be the subject of a letter if there is a mismatch between the Duty Title and Duty Description, incorrect height and/or weight (not a justification for being overweight), rating chain errors (although this would only be applicable for a CTR report).
What are all the comments under "Character" (if you want to disclose)? Comments are not mandatory for a rating of "Did Not Meet Standard" (DMS). BUT: "Special care will be taken to ensure specific bullet comments support appropriate “Far Exceeded Standard,” “Exceeded Standard,” “Met Standard,” and “Did Not Meet Standard” ratings in corresponding blocks". You can suggest they "meant" you did not meet the standard for Character specifically for missing equipment, but the justification for the DMS should be in the same block, not under "Achieves".
You can write the letter, but if I was reviewing it, it would be tough to take the assertion at "face value", especially if you signed it and there are other derogatory comments in "Character". If there are no specific derogatory comments under "Character", it probably won't matter to the board anyway. I know I never look at the actual rating, I look at the comments and if the comments don't actually say anything, I kinda dismiss the whole comment. If you failed to "uphold Army Values", I want to know specifically why, otherwise I chalk it up to a lazy rater there is enough room to elucidate IAW regs. This is a detriment, because you need every comment possible to lay out your performance for the year. I would raise my eyebrow at a MSG losing equipment though.
(7)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
My unit started the eval 60 days after I PCS. I reached out to them to fix my eval but they declined. It is VERY lazily written. Only one rater bullet, character bullet just says didn’t uphold values.
I argued these points but the entire chain of command is new. I don’t know them so I feel they just didn’t care to deal with me. I told them they didn’t really speak on my potential nor performance but rather let my isolated incident overshadow a year of good work. While I take accountability of my actions completely- it’s horribly written, lazy and just outright bad. My SR wrote the entire thing but we also aren’t very familiar with each other. I filed an EO complaint on my original Rater/SR. So the warrant that wrote it just got picked to do the evaluation.
I argued these points but the entire chain of command is new. I don’t know them so I feel they just didn’t care to deal with me. I told them they didn’t really speak on my potential nor performance but rather let my isolated incident overshadow a year of good work. While I take accountability of my actions completely- it’s horribly written, lazy and just outright bad. My SR wrote the entire thing but we also aren’t very familiar with each other. I filed an EO complaint on my original Rater/SR. So the warrant that wrote it just got picked to do the evaluation.
(1)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
MSG (Join to see), thank you for providing the additional context.
Based on what you provided, most board members I know would discount the whole evaluation. Especially if the SR did not address potential in their comments, one rater comments, and if the rest of the comments are pretty ambiguous.
It is good and bad. Good in that it won't hurt the rest of your record.
Bad in that you are missing a year of quality evaluation of your performance and potential. This might sway board members to feel like you didn't care enough about your evaluation to ensure the COR was completed prior to PCS. Especially if the rest of the field are competitive. You will probably take a hit of a few points per board member.
I wouldn't let this sour you though. I went through a similar issue with a rater not utilizing my support form feedback in the evaluation and ended up with a pretty bland evaluation. I tried like hell to get the SR to convince them to fix it, but I guess we just had a personality conflict that I was not aware of. Not only to I ensure that my support form is up to date every 90 days (including pressing the SR to sign it), but I hammer into rated NCOs, SRs, and Raters the importance of each and every evaluation including CORs.
Based on what you provided, most board members I know would discount the whole evaluation. Especially if the SR did not address potential in their comments, one rater comments, and if the rest of the comments are pretty ambiguous.
It is good and bad. Good in that it won't hurt the rest of your record.
Bad in that you are missing a year of quality evaluation of your performance and potential. This might sway board members to feel like you didn't care enough about your evaluation to ensure the COR was completed prior to PCS. Especially if the rest of the field are competitive. You will probably take a hit of a few points per board member.
I wouldn't let this sour you though. I went through a similar issue with a rater not utilizing my support form feedback in the evaluation and ended up with a pretty bland evaluation. I tried like hell to get the SR to convince them to fix it, but I guess we just had a personality conflict that I was not aware of. Not only to I ensure that my support form is up to date every 90 days (including pressing the SR to sign it), but I hammer into rated NCOs, SRs, and Raters the importance of each and every evaluation including CORs.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I held out on signing as long as I could. The eval was not only started after I PCSd but also 120 days after I had a COR. My COR was in DEC, They wrote the eval in Jun and I had left the until end of April.
I felt backed into a corner. However I got a great eval following that one. It sucks that the board will see this and think I didn’t care however all my future evals and even my previous will speak for themselves.
I deeply appreciate you responding. Thanks your your input it really gave me some insight. Stay safe out here!!
I felt backed into a corner. However I got a great eval following that one. It sucks that the board will see this and think I didn’t care however all my future evals and even my previous will speak for themselves.
I deeply appreciate you responding. Thanks your your input it really gave me some insight. Stay safe out here!!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Having sat many boards back in the day, I always advise SMs get the current Board Precepts. It lays out what is fair game, what can and cannot be looked at, points of emphasis, etc. When a reviewer looks at a record, disconnects stick out like a sore thumb. Then some further digging, only in allowed information, ensues. Things like the reporting senior average, their writing, syntax, etc. tends to tell the reviewer what's going on with both the SM and Reporting Senior. Don't expect a great grade on the First Crunch as other reviewers will take a stab on the Second and Third Crunch. CSM Everroad is quite correct in his comments.
I had a disconnect in my Fitrep when up to the O-4 board, which I didn't get selected. I contacted my former reporting senior (O-6), who agreed to redo the Fitrep and added a letter supporting promotion to the next Board. I struck out on that one too given the Second Look ran around 8%. I then put in an appeal to the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), citing the varied procedural errors. They agreed there were errors and struck the first Fitrep and the Reviewing Senior's letter to the Board. I was up against the mandatory DOPMA toss date from Active, so the BCNR addressed that too. Their determination was given the competitiveness of the specific Promotion Board, the size of the Zone, and number of promotions authorized, I would not likely have been selected. First look percentage was 15%, second look was 8%, so I understood the first part. The rest was essentially the BCNR had to decide whether to convene a Special Board. Their business decision was not to make the effort. I was tossed from AD, immediately picked up in the Reserves, quickly hired back as Civil Service in the same SYSCOM, and retired out eventually as an O-6 and GS-15.
Life takes interesting turns, but I chose to press forward every day. Things happen beyond your control, but you are in charge of how excellent you are on any given day. Thinking back on it, I had several recalls and extended ADSWs in uniform to do things an AD would not be tagged for. That has equated to "things" experienced in Cambodia and East Timor that ADs wouldn't experience and mostly can't relate to. Add to that buying MIL time retirement credit for Civil Service and doing TSP to the hilt, I'm in a better spot than doing 30 Active and something else for 10 years. Bottom line, press forward. It beats the other alternatives.
I had a disconnect in my Fitrep when up to the O-4 board, which I didn't get selected. I contacted my former reporting senior (O-6), who agreed to redo the Fitrep and added a letter supporting promotion to the next Board. I struck out on that one too given the Second Look ran around 8%. I then put in an appeal to the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), citing the varied procedural errors. They agreed there were errors and struck the first Fitrep and the Reviewing Senior's letter to the Board. I was up against the mandatory DOPMA toss date from Active, so the BCNR addressed that too. Their determination was given the competitiveness of the specific Promotion Board, the size of the Zone, and number of promotions authorized, I would not likely have been selected. First look percentage was 15%, second look was 8%, so I understood the first part. The rest was essentially the BCNR had to decide whether to convene a Special Board. Their business decision was not to make the effort. I was tossed from AD, immediately picked up in the Reserves, quickly hired back as Civil Service in the same SYSCOM, and retired out eventually as an O-6 and GS-15.
Life takes interesting turns, but I chose to press forward every day. Things happen beyond your control, but you are in charge of how excellent you are on any given day. Thinking back on it, I had several recalls and extended ADSWs in uniform to do things an AD would not be tagged for. That has equated to "things" experienced in Cambodia and East Timor that ADs wouldn't experience and mostly can't relate to. Add to that buying MIL time retirement credit for Civil Service and doing TSP to the hilt, I'm in a better spot than doing 30 Active and something else for 10 years. Bottom line, press forward. It beats the other alternatives.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google