Should Platoon Sergeants be removed from Squad Leader’s Rating Scheme?

2014-01-27T14:40:00-05:00

I PCS’d last week on the same day that my new BC declared
that EVERY Squad Leader will now be rated by the Platoon Leader, NOT the
Platoon Sergeant. So now every single E5 or E6 serving in a Squad Leader
position rating scheme is as follows: Rater – PL, Senior Rater – Company Commander,
Reviewer – Battalion Commander. 

This is the first I’ve heard of this (I was in my last unit
4 years so maybe things outside of my unit changed and I missed it) so I’m wondering
is this something that is starting to spread around elsewhere?

 I FEEL that by
removing the PSG from the rating scheme we (as NCOs) are surrendering that
power over to officers. For years I’ve witnessed the struggles between O’s and
E’s where one side wants to be more hands on while the other side tries harder
to pull it away. I also FEEL that it’s taking an extremely valuable piece of
professional development from those Platoon Sergeants. I have more than 12
months rated PSG time prior to coming here in which I rated numerous different
Squad Leaders and that’s truly the time I learned the most about NCOERs and quarterly
counselings.

I can go on and on about how I feel about the subject. But I
just want to know if this is something that’s sweeping through the ranks or if
this is an isolated event taking place where I am now?

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 27 at 2014 2:54 PM

2014-01-27T14:54:46-05:00

The Chain of Command has always been Squad Leader - Platoon Leader... The PSG is part of the Chain of Concern and has no place in the rating scheme. <div>That being said, the PSG should be very involved in making sure the PL provides a fair and accurate NCOER for the Squad leaders to be rated. This is the same way that 1SG provides guidance on how PSGs are rated and CSMs on the rating of 1SGs.</div><div> </div>

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 27 at 2014 3:03 PM

2014-01-27T15:03:09-05:00

I have a serious issue with placing a 1LT, possibly even a 2LT into an immediate rater position when most may have only a year or two of experience and even less knowledge of that SLs job or what is the learning curve or progression of that SL professionally. And to remove any and all NCO leadership from the rating scheme is not fair to the junior NCO for mentoring and progression of training by a senior NCO for that SMs future.

I completely disagree with this action and would be very surprised that the CSM would be or was in agreement of this policy, while they don't write them, they do advise on them. It doesn't sound to copasetic to me along what I have seen, done or even assisted with over my career.

Response by CPT Laurie H. made Jan 27 at 2014 4:14 PM

2014-01-27T16:14:57-05:00

I haven't seen this where I am in the National Guard, and sincerely hope I don't. I quite honestly don't feel like I was equipped to properly rate my Squad Leaders during my first year as a PL. It took my a couple months to figure out what I was supposed to be doing, let alone what they should be doing, what they were doing, and how I was supposed to develop them as junior leaders. I think it would have been pretty unfair to them for me to rate my squad leaders after 5 months (10 days. TEN) of solid training time with them when my PSG had been working with them for 3-4 years.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2014 7:09 PM

2014-01-31T19:09:20-05:00

There are two major things to look at here, regardless of personal opinion.

" A rating chain is established by the CDR, commandant, or leader of an organization and maintained by rating officials to provide the best evaluation of an individual Soldier’s performance and potential. A rating chain also ties the rated Soldier’s performance to a specific senior or subordinate relationship. This allows for proper counseling to develop the rated Soldier and accomplish the mission. These functions are normally best achieved within an organization’s chain of command or supervision."

This is important because it is the commanders decision as long as rater requirements are adhered to.

" Rater requirements. The rater will normally be the immediate supervisor of the rated Soldier responsible for directing and assessing the rated Soldier’s performance. The rater will normally be senior to the rated Soldier in grade or date of rank. CDRs will normally rate CDRs. Civilian raters for OERs and NCOERs will be designated as official supervisors on the established rating scheme."

AR 623-3 says the rater can be Chain of Command OR Chain of Supervision.

With all the formalities being presented aside, there are some things to take into consideration. If the Commander so chooses to have that young Platoon Leader rate his Squad Leaders that is is prerogative. It is that Platoon Sergeants job to ensure that he is providing sound guidance and mentorship to the platoon leader during the evaluation process. It is that Platoon Sergeants job to ensure that the Platoon Leader is rating that Soldier fairly and with his peers. He is the senior enlisted adviser to that PL he is also responsible for ensuring that the evaluation is fair and impartial and base on facts not opinion.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2014 5:50 PM

2014-03-24T17:50:05-04:00

I believe a lot of systems and ways of thinking are evolving to a Marine's way of life. The PSG could be seen as a guide of the platoon to ensure they have the capability to sustain themselves for the mission. This is what the 1SG did in times past, but with the evolving regional aligned mission this could go to the PSG, as it has in a lot of areas during recent combat deployments for myself. I think it will come down to the type of unit you are in.

Dont be surprise if in the future the Army says E6 board are done by BDE or Corps in a centralized manner and E4-E5 will be BN boards for points; perhaps SPC/CPL will no longer be a handed over rank and we will grow more effectively and the promotion process will become longer and not harder but different.

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Mar 24 at 2014 8:21 PM

2014-03-24T20:21:59-04:00

SFC Akers,

I would refer to you 600-20. It's been in recruiting environment for awhile now. It takes some adjustment, however as in anything we adapt and overcome.

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Mar 24 at 2014 8:40 PM

2014-03-24T20:40:55-04:00

AR 600-20 Army Command Policy states this:

1–5. Command

a. Privilege to command. Command is exercised by virtue of office and the special assignment of members of the
United States Armed Forces holding military grade who are eligible to exercise command. A commander is, therefore,
a commissioned or WO who, by virtue of grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over a military
organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a "command." The
privilege to command is not limited solely by branch of Service except as indicated in chapter 2. A civilian, other than
the President as Commander-in-Chief (or National Command Authority), may not exercise command. However, a
civilian may be designated to exercise general supervision over an Army installation or activity (for example, Dugway
Proving Ground).

b. Elements of command. The key elements of command are authority and responsibility. Formal authority for
command is derived from the policies, procedures, and precedents presented in chapters 1 through 3.

c. Characteristics of command leadership. The commander is responsible for establishing leadership climate of the
unit and developing disciplined and cohesive units. This sets the parameters within which command will be exercised
and, therefore, sets the tone for social and duty relationships within the command. Commanders are also responsible for setting the training of subordinates.

For us in recruiting this came as a surprise to us when it started to happen a few years ago

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2014 9:29 PM

2014-03-25T21:29:00-04:00

Question: is this in an IBCT? Outside of the combat arms world, there are no SLs by MTOE. Don't get it twisted, the one E-6 two E-5 per squad sized section still exists. Those NCOs serve as team leaders and squad leaders as additional duty. However, they're rated via an OIC for their section in their MTOE paragraph. Hell, I'm used to the PL rating the PSG, the CO the 1SG, the BC the CSM, and so on. If the PL can rate the platoon daddy, then he can rate squad leaders as well.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2014 7:20 AM

2014-04-16T07:20:35-04:00

Weird, but if that's the way the command team wants to run it, its their baby.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Oct 4 at 2014 12:20 PM

2014-10-04T12:20:17-04:00

A bit off topic, but why do folks keep referring to PSG? My understanding is the rank went away a while back. Are there still some around that have not been promoted or retired yet. I know that was the case when Tech Sergeant became SFC/PSG we had some Tech Sergeants that hung around a while as E-6s, just as we had MSG/1SG E-7s for a while.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2014 11:17 PM

2014-12-05T23:17:34-05:00

It's been 10 months since I posted this. In October we had a change of responsibility; effective November PSGs are now rating Squad Leaders again. So eleven months after the day I initially met aid NCOs I have officially conducted initial counselings and started their support forms.