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
1
1
0
They would be a success for having a passing APFT score in the last 12 months and within the rating period. A passing score no matter when it was passed is none the less, a passing score. Counselings are used to note deficiencies and can determine whether a Soldiers gets promoted or not or flagged or not at the discretion of the senior leadership or commander and based upon the personal track record (so to speak) of the Soldier. I do not think you will find this in any reg (although I could be wrong), but as soon as a Soldier is successful in meeting the standard the flag should be lifted. After all, flags are in place as soon as they fail.
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SFC (Join to see) , "a passing APFT in the last 12 months". So, if they passed an APFT within the first 3 months of the rating period, but failed their APFT after that, you would still consider them a success since they passed at least one during the rating period?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The new rating scheme makes this question easier to answer. I would not put someone who failed a test, even if passed the next test within the period, as one of my 49% greatly exceeds expectations.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As long as the NCO brought their score back to passing i would say they deserve a success but they would have to do a LOT to over shine that in order to not have a bullet about the failure in the eval. <div><br></div><div>I had an NCO last year fail the APFT, he not only passed his next APFT but before the rating period was over made a 250 and took over the special pops PT program and led 4 others to passing an APFT. </div>
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Mikus - if I'm reading your comment correctly, there is a situation where an NCO fails an APFT and is rated a Success, but the failure is mentioned in the bullet if they haven't done a LOT to over shine the failure?
Seems confusing that you would have the word FAIL in a bullet, but the rating would be a Success?
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Mikus and SFC Fox - point taken and I would agree with your TTP to reflect performance if board panel members had sufficient time to actually read the bullets to see if the narrative matches the overall rating.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This to me is a cut and dry answer. NCO "Needs Improvement" . This should be the honest evaluation no matter what time or part of the evaluation occured. Any Soldier regardless of rank is required to maintain a fitness standard. An APFT is the tool used to assess the standard. An NCOER is an evaluation of the entire rating period. If a Soldier failed an APFT during the rating period at any time he/she has failed to meet a standard.  Okay, if the Soldier has improved during a rating period to finally pass, yes he/she has improved. However, the Soldier improved because the Soldier "Needed Improvement". Also, if the Soldier failed during the evaluation period, it is because the Soldier's physical fitness deteriorated during the evaluation period. If this didn't occur, once again the Soldier would not have failed resulting in the need to improve. When a Soldier maintains a passing APFT score throughout the evaluation period, he/she has "successfully" maintained the standard. Key word here is success.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sfc joe smo sprains ankle extremely bad on run fails to finish taken to hospital! Your logic remains as a needs improvement? When someone loses a piece of property once does it result in needs improvement? Or when a 25 series nco fails a certification test that is mandated does it justify the needs improvement or does that nco get another shot at accomplishing the mission?Â
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
So if anyone has ever been late to work once during the entire rating period they get a needs improvement under responsibility and accountability? Seems like the same logic to me.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSGs you are a part of the problem, there are mitigating circumstances for "spraining of the ankle" and at no time is anyone talking about coming in late for work; however, as a competent NCO, late is not in your vocabulary or in your ability. Â What the SFC is saying is that you fail to meet the standard outright with no mitigating circumstances, you should receive a needs improvement bullet on your NCOER. Why? Because upon failing the APFT/ABCP you should be removed from you leadership position, you need improvement on keeping yourself physically fit. To the first SSG, yes if you fail a certification test for your job, then you need a needs improvement under competence. Read part V of the NCOER and see what we are talking about. I think your platoon sergeant needs to sit down and mentor you on the AR 623-3 and PAM 623-3 so can get the full picture of what is going on here.Â
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
For those who say that the NCO should be reated with "Needs Improvement" what exactly does he need to improve on? In this scenario we stated that he already "improved" by passing the APFT. The rating is for his past performance not future. So if during this rating period he went from failing to passing then he has already improved. He has gone from not meeting the standard to meeting it within a rating period. Meeting the standard is successful.
Whatever you say he needs improvement for, he has already done that by now meeting the standard.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
So if anyone has ever been late to work once during the entire rating period they get a needs improvement under responsibility and accountability? Seems like the same logic to me.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
I see your point, but not quite the same logic.Â
Failing a record APFT results in a flag, being late once does not.
Doesn't seem that the Army thinks those two violations are of equal gravity.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
But they are both performance based objectives.
I agree that they are not of equal gravity but for another reason and that is because being late can result in UCMJ action. Â Failing an APFT does not. Â Being late is the only of the two that results in punishment.
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Failing an APFT could result in separation - now, true that separation is an administrative action, but I would think that being separated is a far greater punishment than receiving an Article 15.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It would depend on why they failed. I had a team leader that usually scores 80 or higher in each event. When PT Test time came around this particular SGT was at the tail end of an illness that had completely drained him. The SGT scored 72 on the pushups, 61 on the sit-ups, and failed the run by 1:07. He waited 30 days, and scored 279. The SGT is an excellent motivator and leader. He was responsible for helping one of our weaker soldiers score a 224. Given that the NCOER is for the whole year, and that this particular SGT is a great asset and a great leader, would it be responsible for me to give him a "Needs Improvement" for failing a PT Test? Absolutely not!
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Well said SSG Cohron, those instances that involve our top performers are much easier to adjudicate.
It's the ones that are normally close that fail and then come back and pass that are much harder to adjudicate.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It'd be a needs improvement IMO, CSM. This isn't a junior enlisted we're whipping into shape, this is a NCO, the leader of our Soldiers and I take that one a little more serious. We're the ones dictating the standards to the Soldiers under our care and for us to be out of regulation and a "SUCCESS" is a definite NO GO in my book. I just saw this at a unit I was with. The person now only gets into the standard bc they're being held accountable by an actual person. 1st line leader has completely overlooked their "friend" and you wonder how many people before this let them slide and pencil whip their APFT and H/W?? We (NCOs) have to maintain the standards, else we look like hypocrites and will have a very undisciplined organization.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
NCO meets the standard during their most recent APFT therefor they are rated as a success overall in my opinion. Although the rater could throw a comment in there for how they over came the previous failure, it's easier to just place their overall APFT score of 210 or whatever to convey to their future rating chains their true performance in that block.
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
1SG, I would agree that we can "quantify" the success with the appropriate bullet, and yes, the future rating chain can see the lack of performance.Â
But for those getting looked at for SFC, if the board panels don't have time to really read into the rater's bullets and really only go off the overall rating for each area, how do an NCO who fails and is rated a Success differ from an NCO who continuously passes and is rated a Success differ?
This is what I really see my job as the Q/C of all NCOERs coming through my Bn - how do I protect the folks who are always doing the the right thing and send that message to the board effectively?
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
You are absolutely right CSM with five minutes (maybe) per record it would be extremely difficult to determine the difference in the two NCOs. Vetting like you mentioned is the only best course of action but one of the tools I learned when rating two NCOs as you describe is to list the better performing as promote now or immediately and the other as promote ahead of peers. I was told and maybe this is wrong that the board members look for comments like that when determining who to promote NOW, what are your thoughts CSM?
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
1SG Rink - you are on the right track.
Sr Rater comments weigh heavily in the OML'ing and the "qualifiers" on promotion/potential bullets matter the most.
Now, we have all seen the "Promote Now", "Promote Ahead of Peers", etc.
Those, in and of themselves, really aren't sufficient. That Sr Rater, who the board members, probably don't know is telling them to promote, but not why. These "Promote Now" comments must explain why the Army needs these folks to be at the next level and what their contribution will be.
For example for a SSG - "Already performing at the SFC level, promote now and place him immediately in a PSG position to increase his scope/responsibility" You can see how this is a little different than just the "promote now" or "promote ahead of peers" bullets.
Additionally, if an NCO is in the upper half of those you senior rate, you should enumerate. "This NCO is #1 of the five NCOs I rate, he consistently outperforms his peers and is ready to be promoted now"
It's all about impact and communicating/painting the picture to the board.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think in reviewing others responses and alli think that There is no clear cut answer and it is truly a matter of the leader making the judgment call based on the NCOs previous performance. The NCO could earn a success depending on the factors involved and the leaders judgements as well as a needs some improvement. Great food for thought though and another exceptional question that I can take back to my peers and fellow NCOs.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Sorry, I know that this has been discussed a lot over the last few days, but I have one more response. The Physical Fitness and Military Bearing portion of the NCOER isn't strictly dependent upon a person's PT test/score/failure. There are other factors that contribute to that block being rating EXCELLENT/SUCCESS/NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. OK, that was my other 2 cents
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google