Who likes the "new" AF performance reports..?

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:47:22 -0500

With the new AF Form 910 version 3 and the 911 in use now... Do you like it or hate it..?

Response by SrA David Steyer made Dec 12 at 2015 3:21 PM

SrA David Steyer — Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:21:50 -0500

The AF dropped the ball and really screwed up. I am glad to be out though but I saw the writing on the wall when I was on my way out the door.

I think they screwed up the forms. First the AF 912 came out the day of the CMSgt close out day, the 911 the same for SMSgt, and the 910 has had so many problems we are on V3 and I wouldn't be surprised if V4 is coming soon. Is it really that hard to make a PDF form?

The AF says volunteering and PT is not on the form but it is indirectly via the whole person concept and you need to do two bullets. Yes I know the form says one minimum, but you all know leadership is going to make you do two bullets. Lets say you get a "met some, but not all expectations" on the Whole Airman Concept Section... well you are getting a referral report. So if you fail to volunteer enough or meet expectations to be involved in the community you are getting a referral report. Not to mention the whole person concept isn't on the AF 912. I guess Chiefs are exempt from it. I see the form is suggested for future roles, but why not do a 1206 if/when nominating for CCM or other positions.

I do think the form made for the force shaping in 2014 would have been a PERFECT EPR form with minor tweaks...The one where you had to strat people, but it was a preview of things to come with racking and stacking.

There are still too many bullets - don't let the minimums fool you, leadership will require and expect you to fill the whole form out.

White space is still going to be a thing, the whole going back and forth up and down the chain is still a thing. I will say though the Static Close Out reduced it, at least at my squadron. Before the SCOD, my EPR went through EIGHT revisions. With the SCOD? Four revisions.

Response by MSgt John Carroll made Dec 12 at 2015 3:57 PM

MSgt John Carroll — Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:57:58 -0500

Our CSS sent out a message yesterday that the local MPS will take any version of the form if you are writing a referral. Apparently people are having problems writing those. I gon't like the fact that I have to attach a mid-term ACA along with the EPR. That feedback should be private between my troop and I.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2015 4:19 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:19:47 -0500

I like the potential it has, if used appropriately.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Dec 12 at 2015 7:08 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:08:27 -0500

If we us the exact wording on the form I would wager 90% of the AF would have a referral EPR.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2015 2:16 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:16:59 -0500

I believe we have a 90% solution with what we currently have. I like that not everyone will be a "5" anymore. I think that the discussions will be difficult this year but they will be less difficult going forward. Looking around a unit everyone knows who the top 1-4 Airmen/NCOs are, now they will have a better chance at getting promoted than others. That, I believe is the best step in the right direct.

To the point above, if you "met some but not all" that is a referral EPR. The bullets attached should indicate why it was a referral.

Allowing the "not ready now" block to not be a referral I believe is a step in the right direction as well. An individual can meet all standards and not be ready to be promoted.

The fact that we have to have honest discussions with our Airmen and leaders is the best part of this change.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 5:44 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:44:57 -0500

This isn't going to change anything. The system is broken already at my base. I don't like the fact you are including the feedback with the EPR. It's private and should be only seen between the individuals.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 1:27 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:27:18 -0500

For the EPRs so far I also think they have potential, although may need some work. Some parts can't be filled out until certain things in other parts are filled out/checked. While I guess I can see their point about things being done in order, sometimes things have to start out of order as they go up. I rather like that there's fewer bullets. It should (emphasis there) force more focus on the job since there's less room for the 'extra' stuff. The latter should be up to the supervisors and more specifically members themselves to ensure are accomplished moreso than baby-sitter lines on an annual report. I like the Whole Airman concept, I just don't think it should be able to be finagled as the majority lines on an annual review.
I also don't mind the limits on the upper ratings. Something needs to be done to address the mindset that everyone is a 5 because everyone else will be a 5. If the only way to do it is to force a limit then so be it. The only potential issue there is it seems Senior Raters can force an endorsement anyway, although they do at least have to mark it as such. But I figure after a year or two of higher than expected endorsements coming through they'll probably have briefings with senior leaders asking them to knock it off unless it can be justified. As with most things there'll be a year or two of growing pains. So we'll see if it ends up being a good change or not.
In the same vain though I have issues with the feedback form. It now seems to read more like a survey to be filled out by the ratee than an actual feedback by the rater. Granted the supervisor can (and should) still review strengths and weaknesses with their ratee(s), but in my opinion it was good having it on the back of the form for the ratee to review over time if needed.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 3:17 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:17:56 -0500

The only issue I have with it is that there are quotas. I understand that not everyone is a the best of the best, but big Air Force dictating how many can be given a specific rating is silly. There are far too many opportunities for good troops to be rated poorly, and marginal troops to be inflated.

I actually like the ACA being included. I think boards should see which troops are, and are not, being given any guidance and feedback. It might change the way the board considers some packages.