Posted on Dec 21, 2013
You Decide: NCOER - An NCO Fails APFT/ABCP During Rated Period
117K
225
180
11
11
0
You are the Rater and one of your NCOs fails (performance/effort related) either APFT/ABCP during the rated period. Within a few months (before the Thru date) they are able to meet the Army Standard.<div><br></div><div>Are they a "Needs Improvement" for failing?<br></div><div>Are they a "Needs Much Improvement" for failing?</div><div>Are they a "Success" for improving from failure to passing?</div><div>Are they a "Success" because the were in a passing status at the Thru Date?</div><div><br></div><div>There is no regulatory answer - How and where do you annotate the performance, or lack thereof on the NCOER?</div>
Army
APFT
NCOER
Standards
ABCP
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 54
0
0
0
Roger that! If the NCO has met and or exceeded the standard during the rating period after failing to do so in that same period; they deserve a success bullet with comments to justify.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
After reading some of the responses and "question responses" to this thread and even responing to one responder, I have to ask the following questions.
Isn't the NCOER and OVERALL evaluation of performance during the rated period? If it isn't an overall for the period, then why do we not get an NCOER monthly instead of annually? If it is, wouldn't the failure be negated by the "come back"? No? Why not?
just some questions running through my head. Interested in your oinions.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SFC Day, great point, but I look at like this.
If you're willing to give a "Success" to someone who fails, improves and passes, what do you give the NCO who met the standard the whole time?
Maybe the other NCO is an 85/85/85 who doesn't earn a patch, but honestly is far and above the failure/improve/pass NCO.
My goal/focus is to protect our folks who meet the standard all the time, that's why I think we have to differentiate between those that don't by accurately reflecting their performance.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Good point CSM. My thoughts are that given your statement that a needs some improvement and an overall fully capable isn't a career ender isn't really the case. I think that would actually seem contradictory to the board and "toss out" that whole evaluation as meaningless. I guess with the board, it is up to each of the CSM that are sitting on it and their own thoughts. I get the idea of protecting the folks that consistently meet the standard, but I personally think that is where the bullets come in. All too often, raters are reluctant to put honest bullets on the NCOER assuming that either their 1SG or BN CSM will attempt to shoot it down. What we as raters need to remember is that 1SG and CSM can argue with me all they want, can make my life a bit of hell, but they simply cannot force me to change anything other than grammar and punctuation on an evaluation. It is my job to present bullet comments that give an accurate depiction of an NCO's performance during that rating period. If I give a success for a failure and subsequent pass, then I should annotate this in the bullet comments such as: "showed personal development by recovering from failed APFT to pass the next one in the rating period." Something to that nature that differentiates between the success I gave the 85/85/85 in your example and the success I gave this NCO for his improved performance. Just my thoughts CSM Maynard. It would definitely help if there was at the least clear and concise guidance from the SGM Academy about what constitutes what type of rating AND that ALL raters and sr raters were honest when evaluating a NCO.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SFC Day, I would agree that gradients of Success could be annotated in the bullets.
Now, what if, as a selection board panel member you were told to trust the chain. Since CSMs are directed to review all NCOERs and Sr Raters and Reviewers are supposed to validate NCOERs, why not trust the chain and go with the rating. That being the case, there would be no reason to read the bullets to see if the bullets justified the rating.
If that was the case, then a Success is a Success no matter how you explain it in the bullets.
(0)
(0)
SGT(P) Kenneth Jones
why would it be ok for an nco to only hit army standards and when a joe fallows and does the army they are confronted and counciled for it and told they are expected to exceed the standard when the nco has nothing said to or counciled
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Success for improving. However, as an NCO we are to set and exceed standards if it's a growing trend the NCO has failed in pass it would be needs improvement.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Just another thought. The NCOER is the RATER's opinion/perception of the rated's performance. If he feels that it needs to improve or if he feels it is successful then that is what he's rated as.
If a soldier goes from failing to maxing in a rating period, his rater may very well interpret that as an Excellence but according to what's being said here most of you would say needs improvement.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
I guess we could all be "Excellent" if we always compared ourselves to sub-par performance - either ours or our peers.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I was "taught" and held to what the Soldiers status is/was at the end of the rating period...if they had a passing APFT score or were within reg as far as Ht/Wt and not on the Weight Control program, then they were rated Success. I can see how the individual rater could "go either" way, I think it's how that rater was "taught" by their mentors.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SFC Swartz, do you see a difference in "maintaining a standard" vs "meeting a standard"?
Which do you think the expectation is for NCOs?
(0)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
CSM, as I am retired now, it makes no difference to me either way....while I was AD, I knew the difference between meeting a standard and maintaining a standard. The expectation is of course, to meet AND maintain the standard for we are the standard bearers. I was merely stating what I was taught way back in the '90s when I first became an NCO and the mentorship that was provided throughout the course of my professional career by some very outstanding PSGs, 1SGs and CSMs.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SSG (Join to see)
Many soldiers are not what they used to be when it comes to schools. Their mind has been affected in many ways. Though they are still sharp their learning abilities have been affected.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
CSM, I would take into consideration their past APFT/ABCPs. If they have a history of failures then I would say success but needs improvement. If they have a history of passing and this was their first fail, then I would take into account of possibly a bad day or some sort of illness and mark it as success for obtaining a passing status at the Thru Date.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Does the panel not have time to read at least the first bullet for each of the 5 areas on the NCOER? If written correctly the top bullet in each of the 5 areas should be the strongest. After reading the first bullet and viewing the overall rating in that category the panel should be able to determine if the bullet correctly reflects the given rating.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
You have to consider how many records that the panel has to assess each day and how much they get for each record.
So, five NCOERs, five rated areas (that's determining if 25 bullets justify that individual rating) - how long would that take? Even if you spent 30sec per bullet, that is 12.5min. That is a LOT of time to spend on a record when you're only focused on the rater portion.
Honestly, the Senior Rater portion speaks more to potential than what the Rater portion does - that's what should be focused on.
That's why it's so important that CSMs personally review every NCOER in a unit and that they validate that all ratings are justified. By doing this, it alleviates the necessity for the panel members to spend an inordinate amount of time determining whether the rating was justified.
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Duly noted. I did consider how long it would take and I am aware that most panels view a large number of packet, probably more than they can efficiently process. I wasn't thinking about the level of potential which makes a lot of sense, rather I was focused on what the job of the rater is. That being what the individual actually did during the rating period. I will have to keep that in the back of my mind from now on.
(2)
(0)
SFC Gary Fox
CSM Maynard, it the focus of the board is on the Senior Rater section of the NCOER, then why is so much emphasis placed on the Rater portion when it comes to completing the NCOER? If the board spends their time looking at the SR Rater portion and not the Rater, then that is indicative the NCOER should be changed.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SFC Fox - great point.
While the Senior Rater portion holds significant sway with the board, a lot of the "base impression" is garnered from the number of Total Excellence's over the last 5 NCOERs.
That's why it is so important that CSMs ensure that raters are being fair/equal and that their bullets justify the rating.
That way board members can trust the chain wrt to the Rater's Portion and focus more on the Sr Raters bullets.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If they happen to over come the failure during the rating period you cannot mark them a needs improvement on Apft because he met the standard before the period was over. Simply put by regs he is qualified. Now you should ask yourself is he among the best. Is he on a level playing field with his peers. Certainly not! There are plenty of other areas that you can show where this leader is not exceeding the standards or leading by example. What core values has this NCO forgone to allow themselves to even be put into this situation? What part of the NCO Creed is this NCO not living up too? The NCOER is designed to be challenging. If your are properly assessing your junior NCOs then you are forced to look deep and hard at every section of the evaluation as it truly pertains to this mentor of Soldiers on a daily basis. If like many NCOs you wait until it is due than you have not professionally or justly evaluated this NCO's potential. You do the NCO, your Soldiers and your unit a great disservice. To back up a bit; what led the NCO to this outcome, what enabled them to overcome? What did you do to effect the situation? If you just played lip service and said bad NCO, how can you have even justify a negative rating? Your Soldiers are a reflection of your leadership. "Grandma always practiced preventive medicine," did you?
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
You say that "by regs he is qualified" and "you cannot mark them a needs improvement" - where are you citing this from? AR? DA Pam?
So, based on your philosophy, an NCO who met the standard the whole time would receive the same rating as an NCO who failed to meet the standard during the rating period?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
One of the situations here correlates to another question that has been asked.
If an NCO/leader fails an APFT/ABCP do you give him time to recover or relieve him?
If you relieve him, there is an accompanying Relief for Cause NCOER/OER based on the APFT/ABCP failure. There will be a needs improvement, at least one no bloc on Army Values and a 3/3 or 4/3 from the senior rater and the Soldier might as well resign or put in a 4187 requesting reassignment before his next rating comes due unless you are targeting for release from the Army.
If you allow him to recover, you are showing compassion and are expecting it to be repaid in kind, whether it is in their leadership style with subordinates or diligence in future tasks assigned to them. How do you/they maintain the standards in their section while they are "recovering" when everyone knows he got a "freebie"? Does the NCO have enough redeeming qualities to have the loyalty of his section while he corrects his deficiency?
Furthermore, if you have two NCOs that have failed, are you applying your decision equitably? Are you firing or retaining both? Are you letting one go while keeping the other? If so, why?
Was the APFT/ABCP administered properly? The CSM's other question regarding a failed APFT where the NCO broke their leg? Is this the failure you are basing a decision to relieve/retain him? or the basis for your annotation on their evaluation?
Rater/Senior Rater/Commander's discretion is always the rule. Does this mean that it is applied equitably across the force? Absolutely not, far from it actually. But when you look at this Soldier, as their leader, do you see them as that 2/1 Soldier in relation to their peers? or are they that 3/3 that needs to move on?
If an NCO/leader fails an APFT/ABCP do you give him time to recover or relieve him?
If you relieve him, there is an accompanying Relief for Cause NCOER/OER based on the APFT/ABCP failure. There will be a needs improvement, at least one no bloc on Army Values and a 3/3 or 4/3 from the senior rater and the Soldier might as well resign or put in a 4187 requesting reassignment before his next rating comes due unless you are targeting for release from the Army.
If you allow him to recover, you are showing compassion and are expecting it to be repaid in kind, whether it is in their leadership style with subordinates or diligence in future tasks assigned to them. How do you/they maintain the standards in their section while they are "recovering" when everyone knows he got a "freebie"? Does the NCO have enough redeeming qualities to have the loyalty of his section while he corrects his deficiency?
Furthermore, if you have two NCOs that have failed, are you applying your decision equitably? Are you firing or retaining both? Are you letting one go while keeping the other? If so, why?
Was the APFT/ABCP administered properly? The CSM's other question regarding a failed APFT where the NCO broke their leg? Is this the failure you are basing a decision to relieve/retain him? or the basis for your annotation on their evaluation?
Rater/Senior Rater/Commander's discretion is always the rule. Does this mean that it is applied equitably across the force? Absolutely not, far from it actually. But when you look at this Soldier, as their leader, do you see them as that 2/1 Soldier in relation to their peers? or are they that 3/3 that needs to move on?
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Welker
Correct me if I am wrong, but the regs concerning the APFT failure (flag) are designed for recovery. they have the same chance as everyone that the reg applies to. This NCO has though killed thier chance for among the best. Too bad so sad, someone else just took that opportunity. There is always next time. If the said Soldier became injured during the APFT then technically they failed. There is no area for why they failed. Now take into effect your ethics and morals. Does the Soldier deserve the repercussions or is there no quarter. The reqs are sometimes finite but overall are guidelines. Becuase you have rules and regs does that mean you no longer have discretion and the ability to use good judgement, fairness and common sense? On the other hand if the Soldier was injured prior, did they follow proper procedures to recover and be covered by medical regs. Is the Soldier malingering? If the Soldier did not go thru proper recovery and failed then oh well, they took a chance. You play you pay. Be sure of what your doing and your capabilities before you gamble.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google