Who on earth designed the PDF-F of the NCOER 2166-8?!

2015-04-22T19:02:31-04:00

This has to be one of the worst forms to possibly work with and whoever is in charge of making it is probably the same people in charge with a lot of the IT in the Army..

But here is my rant...

1) It looks unprofessional. Call me a nitpick, but the check boxes on the second page don't even line up the same. It looks very shabby, like someone threw it together in five minutes.

2) The APFT block is a disaster. I am constantly having problems where depending upon the selection from the drop down menu, it doesn't allow me to actually type in the block. The cursor is there, but it won't type. To fix it, I have to copy and paste what I already have in there (if anything) and re-do the drop down block to say pass. Which subsequently blanks the entire box, but at least allows me to type for a short period of time.

3) The word company commander can no longer be written. It has to be Company CDR or CO Commander. Another nit pick detail, but it seems as though this is one of the most common people in a company's rating chain, you would think we could make that work.

4) Total rated time and non-rated codes no longer easily done, increasing the odds of error by user and reviewing parties. Ugh.

What a disgrace. Don't any of these things get a test before being released?

Response by SGT Nia Chiaraluce made Apr 22 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-04-22T19:06:05-04:00

Thank goodness for the new -9. However, I have yet to see the new -1 hopefully it is an all around improvement.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-04-22T19:06:56-04:00

Thought I was the only one who hated....all of the above made me want to throw my computer out the window, lol!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 7:08 PM

2015-04-22T19:08:02-04:00

Couldn't say much more. Sums it up well. But why come up with a new format when it's all going online 1Oct?.

Response by SFC Chris Sedlock made Apr 22 at 2015 7:40 PM

2015-04-22T19:40:18-04:00

I dont understand why but their transitioning .xfdl out and starting to incorporate pdf forms. Another example is a 368... With the xfdl's we were able to follow whatver stupid idea bde came up with for how they wanted it to look regardless of what the reg said (ie. had to identify that the recommendee was in army, even tho reg said its implied if left blank). Since they transitioned to pdf only :) good, we cant follow whatever rules they have.

Now as far as 2166-8 goes, i think it looks the same with the exception of what you listed, but i can only forsee it irritating s1 more bc the margin for administrative errors increase (nonrated codes, non rated time, rated time) since its not autocalculated, but on that note, makes us raters have to dig in the reg more bc we'd have to look up the less known codes except the more common ones (s,i,q)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 8:49 PM

2015-07-12T20:49:58-04:00

This is highly unstable form. The drop down boxes cause the form to shut down. The APFT block locks down to editing or entering bullets. Love to type all my bullets in just to have them lost in the save process. Horrible form but those who created it probably don't have to deal with the process.