Who gets a better rating and why?

You're the rater, you get to decide. There's something called rater philosophy that is a factor in every senior enlisted board.

The idea is that people, not the service, should decide who should be rated higher

At least in the Army, the NCOER is a somewhat strange document in that it is supposed to capture a period of performance (standard is 1-year, but it could be more or less), while *also* being a snapshot of a where a particular NCO is *right now*.

So an NCO who comes in in the bottom 10% and works hard and is in the top 10% at time of rating would get a very good review (they are currently in top 10%), PROVIDED THAT there is enough meat in the period to substantiate that rating, AND that there are no MAJOR mess-ups (DUI, lost equipment, GOMOR, Art 15, etc.) from the beginning of the rating period which require being addressed. If they fixed themselves quick and performed at a high level for *most* of the time, they should probably get a good rating.

The reverse is also true - if you start out great, but let yourself slide, your NCOER will also reflect where you end up.

But all of it, good, bad, ugly, indifferent, is going to depends on what the rater can substantiate. How the rater "feels" about the NCO is irrelevant. What do the numbers say? Top squad in PT average? Or bottom? Or somewhere in between? And so on for everything the NCO has or has not done.


That being said, there is a *lot* that can be done with improvement. *Especially* improvement of the Soldiers. If a team leader takes their team from a 195 APFT average (and I know the Army is moving to the ACFT, but I don't fully understand the scoring, so bear with my "antiquated" reference) to a 250, that is more impressive (to me) than the NCO who takes their team from a 260 to a 262, *despite* the 262 being higher. But an NCO taking their *personal* APFT from 195 to 250 is still not as good as the NCO who went from a 260 to a 262. But I won't ding the NCO for starting at 195 (provided they were passing), either - as the 250 end point is what is important.

At least that is how I view it.

A1C Chris Pointer A rating takes place over a period of time. It is NOT a snapshot of one particular moment in the rating period.
Troop A is middle of the road "completely satisfactory". If this is his standard of performance, he will gain the automatic promotions until the need for a competitive board comes up for a next level. He will probably not be competitive against peers - like Troop B.
Troop B, according to your model, demonstrates the desire and ability to move from a below satisfactory performer to a superior performer. This, over time, will be reflected in results achieved. B will probably also go the automatic promotion path until the competitive board, at which time his performance will set him above troop A
Just my .02

Should be A, but historically B. A will fade into the background while B sucks up the spotlight.

I would say both of them get counseling statements but more for Troop B who seems to need some extra supervision. Although, at some point, if the behavior continues, a decision will need to be made. Would it be time to cut bait or is corrective action enough for that individual to finally wake up. For Troop A, just doing their job to standard is also a little concerning. Not that they're doing a terrible job but we always tell our troops to strive for excellence in everything they do. Ask the question of why is that person constantly just doing the minimums to meet the standard? Set the bar a little higher and see what they do with that guidance and reward them for meeting and exceeding the expectations of their leadership.

I haven’t supervised enlisted in 8 years as I’m a joint staff weenie and am not really attached to the mother Air Force in the normal operational unit sense. Basically you would take different metrics and make a score. By design your EPR kind of does this. Who has the greatest mission impact? If both are the same, then who is bettering themselves like getting their 5 level taking community college of the Air Force courses. Who completed their courses for their AFSC, I forget what those are called. Then there are other things like keeping readiness up to date and fitness scores. You can come up with a pretty good idea of where people are.

You are evaluating the troops PERFORMANCE DURING THE ENTIRE REPORTING PERIOD. You must take everything into account.

Troop A-Does his daily duties and Meets the standard. But with the right mentorship he will exceed the standard.
Troop B- lacks some motivation and needs a push to meet the standard but has the desire to exceed the standard.
Neither of the two type of Soldiers are better than the other. Their personalities and work ethic will determine who will receive the better rating overtime.

Troop A. They demonstrated being with the game from the start. Troop B would have had a few meetings to discuss performance and issues and the when they showed improvement they would be informed that they had made progress and they need to continue on the same trajectory and they will be just fine.

In my opinion who ever achieves the most, and who shows leadership qualities the most gets the better rating. Think long term later in their careers. Who would want to lead Soldiers?