Posted on Jan 28, 2015
The Army is removing the automatic masking of OERs. Do you think this is a wise move?
56.5K
200
75
5
5
0
Army Directive 2015-07, Unmasking of Army Officer Evaluation Reports, dtd. 27 JAN 2015, has just been published. It will cause a large shift in how OERs are seen by future boards for all Army Officers.
Traditionally, Army boards do not see evaluations from an Officer's time as a Lieutenant or from a Warrant Officer's time as a WO1. This was done on the assumption that new Officers make some "growing pains" mistakes that should not be viewed punitively going forward. At the same time, however, the old policy masked OERs even if they were exceptional with ACOM ratings.
What's your opinion? Does masking serve a useful purpose, or was it simply part of a growing Army's procedures that should be eliminated during a draw-down? Do you think there will be a large number of Field-Grade Officers not promoted because of "one stupid thing", like what was claimed about Officers separated in the recent OSB/eSERB?
Old Language:
AR 623-3, 1–12(b) - "Selection board members and career managers will not have access to officers’ masked LT OERs in the AMHRR once they are promoted to CPT, or warrant officers’ masked WO1 OERs once promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3)."
New Language:
"All OERs will be placed in the performance section of the official Army Military Human Resources Records file."
Traditionally, Army boards do not see evaluations from an Officer's time as a Lieutenant or from a Warrant Officer's time as a WO1. This was done on the assumption that new Officers make some "growing pains" mistakes that should not be viewed punitively going forward. At the same time, however, the old policy masked OERs even if they were exceptional with ACOM ratings.
What's your opinion? Does masking serve a useful purpose, or was it simply part of a growing Army's procedures that should be eliminated during a draw-down? Do you think there will be a large number of Field-Grade Officers not promoted because of "one stupid thing", like what was claimed about Officers separated in the recent OSB/eSERB?
Old Language:
AR 623-3, 1–12(b) - "Selection board members and career managers will not have access to officers’ masked LT OERs in the AMHRR once they are promoted to CPT, or warrant officers’ masked WO1 OERs once promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3)."
New Language:
"All OERs will be placed in the performance section of the official Army Military Human Resources Records file."
Promotion Board
Officers
Evaluations
OER
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 31
I never knew that. I don't see that being any issue with that. The point is that they should see improvement. Some make mistakes but if everyone makes them they should be expected. Some who excel at the lower level should have their work follow them. I agree with it. I have worked very hard as a LT. I have no issue with my OER following me.
(2)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
CPT (Join to see), and those with spotless records from the very start are also the ones we should NOT be looking at when it comes time to be shaping the force!
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland It is not that it is spotless but the improvement. If a LT feels to maintain an Army Value and lacks integrity why should that be masked. Everyone expects us LTs to make mistakes. If an OER was perfect it probable is fake. But the hard work that was put forward and the development that was make should be shown.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Sigh, does this mean since I am at the DA Select Board already (since Dec02) that my board is going to take longer to send out results? I was sure hoping for March.
(2)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
It shouldn't. None of your (or your cohort's) OERs were yet masked, so there is nothing to undo. Any revised/updated guidance to boards already underway should have no effect on a RC 03 board.
On the other hand, just know that DA Boards sometimes have a way of going longer than you thought possible.
On the other hand, just know that DA Boards sometimes have a way of going longer than you thought possible.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Your probably right sir. For them to start over doesn't seem practical but yes, it's the DA Board.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am waiting patiently, for the results of that board, as well, Tyler.
Right now, it is unclear what is actually going on.
I know, a few days ago, an email was put out concerning a "delay", however, it was very vague.
The FY13 group took around 250 or so days to release their results, on account of, I heard, possibly everything from sequestration to the board having to reconvene due to an 'error' in the process of executing the board.
Let's hope there wasn't an error in the process of executing our board....
Right now, it is unclear what is actually going on.
I know, a few days ago, an email was put out concerning a "delay", however, it was very vague.
The FY13 group took around 250 or so days to release their results, on account of, I heard, possibly everything from sequestration to the board having to reconvene due to an 'error' in the process of executing the board.
Let's hope there wasn't an error in the process of executing our board....
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I tend to agree that young officers may mistep in route to learning the ropes and provided that is not consistent, why should it bite them in the 6 later.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Laurie H.
Exactly. These missteps being visible may also serve to show progress and improvement. Someone who struggled as an LT then turns into a great CPT may be extremely driven and have put a lot of time into self-improvement... a characteristic that will be better understood when the whole story is visible.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Agreed. The fact that "mistakes" have been masked has been ridiculed for years, allowing younger officers the leeway to actually make mistakes and not be concerned about them. Does this provide a false sense of security?
(1)
(0)
CPT Richard Riley
The belief of 'false sense of security' may be the case for a minority few, but I tend to think overall the majority of young officers do not/ would not use that as a crutch. Most people learn from their mistakes, it is not an excuse. I will concede that there can be some serious mistakes made by young officers that need to be brought to task and all missteps made by those officers require accountability regardless of severity. I say this because second lieutenants - and by extension first lieutenants - are in the process of learning what to do and how to be a good officer.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
All OERs were unmasked years ago. Bring it on, lets just get done with it.
From what I've learned and experienced, the OER can be viewed as your performance if accurately and unbiasedly written.
Or it can simply be the opinion of the rater, Sr rater or both when they personally dont like you. This is where some careers are put to an end. Sadly it happens. This type of OERs would have been seen by the OSBs but not by the selection boards. Now it all changes. No more Free Chicken.
In the end, what all Sr Raters say lays the pastern of how one performs. And hopefully there are a few ACOMs on the file.
From what I've learned and experienced, the OER can be viewed as your performance if accurately and unbiasedly written.
Or it can simply be the opinion of the rater, Sr rater or both when they personally dont like you. This is where some careers are put to an end. Sadly it happens. This type of OERs would have been seen by the OSBs but not by the selection boards. Now it all changes. No more Free Chicken.
In the end, what all Sr Raters say lays the pastern of how one performs. And hopefully there are a few ACOMs on the file.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As far as I know, the AF has not blacked out anything.... they were able to look at EVERY record of mine back to my commissioning. Don't think they looked at my enlisted records, but everything I had done as an officer was free game!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Tough call. There is a reason E1-E4 don't get evaluated, so I can see where masking O1-O2 OERs could be a good thing. BUT, if an lieutenant pulls a really boneheaded act (DUI), maybe it shouldn't be a masked record.
My records were all good, so I can fully support this move, but this is on the path to the "Zero Defect" Army we had back in the 90s. These are dangerous times for Army careers, unfortunately.
My records were all good, so I can fully support this move, but this is on the path to the "Zero Defect" Army we had back in the 90s. These are dangerous times for Army careers, unfortunately.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
MAJ (Join to see), Army E1-E4 don't get annual performance reports?!? I will chalk that up as another huge difference between Big Green and Big Blue.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
COL Vincent Stoneking, I just cannot wrap my head around not formally documenting annually a troops performance good or bad, to be able to use that to vector them for assignments, special duties, or simply retention for up to their first EIGHT years in the service! That just blows my mind.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
E1-E4 are not officers. E5 (or E4 corporal) and above are non- Commissioned OFFICERS. Officers should be subject to transparent (but fair) evaluation form day 1, this included O1 and above.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's a terrible idea because it breaks faith with the officers who were promised they were no longer in a zero-defect environment. However, I have no problem with keeping all future OERs open for all future boards.
The real problem is the up-or-out promotion system, which is toxic to the team-environment that is essential for any military.
The real problem is the up-or-out promotion system, which is toxic to the team-environment that is essential for any military.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I never bought the masking to begin with; none of my company grade OERs were masked. That takes me to the "Traditionally, Army boards do not see..." not true; we didn't start masking company grade OERs until sometime in the early-2000s. The Senior Rater block has always been about potential so I never understood it. It did save a bunch of senior raters the hassle of having to manage their profiles.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
//"[W]e didn't start masking company grade OERs until sometime in the early-2000s."//
Masking was initiated with the switch from the 67-8 to the 67-9, on 01 October 1997, not the early '00s.
I will grant, for an Officer who came into the Army after the switch (such as me), it is our entire career, so it does sometimes seem a "tradition" when you are correct that it is not really all that old.
//"The Senior Rater block has always been about potential so I never understood it."//
And yet we still see constant issues with Raters not sticking to performance, and SRs not sticking to Potential. I'm glad that you were careful about it, but I've occasionally had to request re-dos of my OERs before I felt comfortable signing because my bosses genuinely didn't know how to write them**.
**(Perhaps that was more of a Reserve thing, though.)
Masking was initiated with the switch from the 67-8 to the 67-9, on 01 October 1997, not the early '00s.
I will grant, for an Officer who came into the Army after the switch (such as me), it is our entire career, so it does sometimes seem a "tradition" when you are correct that it is not really all that old.
//"The Senior Rater block has always been about potential so I never understood it."//
And yet we still see constant issues with Raters not sticking to performance, and SRs not sticking to Potential. I'm glad that you were careful about it, but I've occasionally had to request re-dos of my OERs before I felt comfortable signing because my bosses genuinely didn't know how to write them**.
**(Perhaps that was more of a Reserve thing, though.)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Everyone makes mistakes. However, those mistakes must be some serious lapses in leadership and judgment to make it to an OER and/or the rater really does not understand counseling and corrective training. With the Army looking at retaining the best, raters and senior raters are the honest brokers of the standard. If an officer is having difficulties, the rater and senior rater are just as responsible for those failures. Document everything! Counseling, training, and supervision should be used to re-evaluate the officer.
Officers and senior NCOs are held to a higher standard because we are entrusted for the well-being (lives) of our subordinates. Offenses committed by enlisted and junior NCOs are not as severely punished as those committed by someone (officers) in a leadership position.
If a board member has enough time to go all the way back to the 2LT/1LT or WO1 OERs for any kind of selection, they are probably not performing within the board guidance or its a very small number of files and only the best should be selected. Of all the officers I have talked to about promotion boards, they only have a few minutes between the DA Photo, ORB, and OERS to rate a packet.
Officers and senior NCOs are held to a higher standard because we are entrusted for the well-being (lives) of our subordinates. Offenses committed by enlisted and junior NCOs are not as severely punished as those committed by someone (officers) in a leadership position.
If a board member has enough time to go all the way back to the 2LT/1LT or WO1 OERs for any kind of selection, they are probably not performing within the board guidance or its a very small number of files and only the best should be selected. Of all the officers I have talked to about promotion boards, they only have a few minutes between the DA Photo, ORB, and OERS to rate a packet.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google