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
3
3
0
To the OP per regulation NCO will receive success. I believe the NCOER system must be eliminated. I am sure every NCO In here had seen more than one NCO getting rated way over or under the truth to me that's enough not to let the paper fool the pen.
(3)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Ruiz, what Regulation or DA Pam or document stipulates what earns a Success and what earns an Excellence?
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG McGee, please expound on where exactly in the AR or DA Pam that gives specific guidance that APFT failures will be rated a Success as long as they meet the standard on the Thru date?
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Neither do, I was just starting the references which primarily the DA PAM describes the criteria for the different types of ratings. That is purely up to interpretation and a leaders judgement.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Well, I am sure some of you will disagree with me, but that is what makes this forum such a great forum that we can get our points across and have a disagreement.
I would have to give the NCO a needs improvement, the NCOER will show PASS and the Yes in the APFT HT/WT data. I would put a bullet in there improved APFT for 140 to 220 showing that there was improvement during the rating period and also a bullet showing the s/he fail a record APFT during the rating period.
We have to remember that we are as the rater have to ensure that standards are meet during the entire rating period. Not just at the end, or at the 10 month mark as to try and get that success. The report is for the entire 3-12 months of the rating and we have to look at the entire rating period, the whole soldier concept and remember we have to paint the picture for the board, is this person ready to move up to the next level and be our peer, or even our superior?? Standards are set by the Army for people to meet at all time, and come on, we all know that 180, 60 in each even is not that hard of a standard to meet at any given time. It would be no different then someone getting a DUI during the rating period, but then completes ASAP, enrolled in A/A and is now sober for 6 moths during the 12 month rating period, would they get a success or Excellent?
Ok and last thing, and not being a "Cut throat" what if it is you and this person both up for promotion, and you never had a failing PT score, always meet Ht/WT and this person gets promoted because you said, Told the Board, that this person is a standards bearer and they selected him over you, now can you work for that person?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Success for passing. I wouldn't say needs improvement for failing because they already improved.
(3)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Burns, then what rating does an NCOER earn that met the standard for the entire rating period? The same? <div><br></div><div>Then how does a board panel tell the difference between an NCO that met the standard during the entire rating period vs one that doesn't? </div><div><br></div><div>Or does that even matter? Or should it?</div>
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
It all depends on what was discussed on the NCOER support form. There are too many factors to consider. Did he fail the APFT because he sprained his ankle on the run, was feeling sick that day? Whatever. Later he corrected his deficiency and was successful.
What if he maxed his APFT earlier in the rating period but later scored a 260. Is this only a success because he didn't max it every time? I think it depends on what you established as a rater before hand. If you say you will receive and excellence if you max your APFT then he did that.
As far as the board is concerned Im not sure it makes a difference. So you have one soldier who scored 185 throughout the entire rating period and you have another who scored a 170 then 240 and 270. Are you saying that soldier needs a needs improvement? I think to the contrary he has shown improvement.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Success because the last APFT during the rating period was a passing score. Giving an NCO a 'Needs Improvement' is a career killer, and if they are truly a good NCO, do we want one stumble to end their career?
(2)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Chief Walker - I agree that it could cause a pause in someone's career, but since the centralized boards mostly focus on your last 5 NCOERs, those are all probably as a SSG - so, I think that if a SSG cannot consistently meet APFT standards, we have to communicate that to do the board to differentiate against those SSGs who do consistently meet APFT standards.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Anyone can have a bad day, CSM Maynard, and the way I read the original poster's question, this sounds like one hiccup. The hypothetical NCO failed one APFT, came back and passed the next one respectably.
One hiccup, in this case, can kill someone's career, not just pause it. If this hypothetical SSG is a good NCO otherwise and was just having a bad day, do we really want to do that over *ONE* failed APFT when the next APFT wasn't?
One hiccup, in this case, can kill someone's career, not just pause it. If this hypothetical SSG is a good NCO otherwise and was just having a bad day, do we really want to do that over *ONE* failed APFT when the next APFT wasn't?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I would say a "Needs Improvement'. Thus explained: as a Noncommissioned Officer you are the standard bearer, and you are required to maintain yourself in a state of readiness mandated by the Army. You cant sit and counsel soldiers for failing the APFT and ABCP and not expect to be held to the same army standard. Also, as a leader you usually know when an APFT is coming up so that you and your soldiers can prepare. If there is to be any reason why a NCO fails, its because of an injury, but even then you are either on a profile or on recovery and are only limited to a diagnostic APFT.
(2)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
You bring up a great point SGT Jones - how does an NCO who is not meeting standards counsel others for not meeting the standard.
Seems a little hypocritical that as a new NCO that I would receive initial counseling stating that the expectation is that I meet standards when my rater is not meeting standards.
Harsh? Yes, but that is the expectation of NCOs/Leaders.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Thank you CSM Maynard. Its shameless to say the least to see leaders both NCOs and Officers alike jump on a soapbox and preach this that and the third but sing a different song when its their card that gets pulled.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
A little late on this, but why would the NCO be counseling anyone if he is not meeting standards? He should be flagged, barred, and removed from his leadership position the minute he fails to meet the standards. Then we don't have to worry about him counseling anyone on his expecting them to meet or exceed the standards when clearly he has a problem with both.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I teach my guys that this is where we are at "rater's choice". It's right to go either way. Assess the character of service and judge the potential for future of the NCO. This is where two people in the same category can be rated differently. A consistently poor performer isn't going to get rated the same way as a guy who just stepped on it once and got his stuff straight.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
"Success" because they passed the (most recent) test(s).<br><br>The failing action should be documented on the NCOER Support form (at least) and a detailed counseling statement.<div><br></div><div>If the annotation of a failing test could impact a future NCOER with a "Needs Improvement" and may most likely cause separation or denial of continued service would not provide the motivation to want to overcome, I'm not sure what would.</div>
(2)
(0)
SGM Matthew Quick
Unfortunately, without knowing NCO's recent APFT/ABCP history, still a "Success" in this scenario.
Here's my quantifiable reasoning:
Fail (misses minimum by 1 point/pound or more) + Exceed standard (exceeds standard by 1 point/pound or more) = 'Success'
However, Fail + Meet Standard (minimum standard, raises failed score to minimum score) = 'Needs Improvement'
I would, however, annotate this recent failure in a counseling and NCOER support form and make it clear that ANY standards failing, especially by a 'Leader of Soldiers' during the next rating period will result in a "Needs Improvement" rating in that area and will jeopardize future service.
(I may have t add this to all my initial counselings from this point on...no NCO should be failing the APFT/ABCP standards)
Here's my quantifiable reasoning:
Fail (misses minimum by 1 point/pound or more) + Exceed standard (exceeds standard by 1 point/pound or more) = 'Success'
However, Fail + Meet Standard (minimum standard, raises failed score to minimum score) = 'Needs Improvement'
I would, however, annotate this recent failure in a counseling and NCOER support form and make it clear that ANY standards failing, especially by a 'Leader of Soldiers' during the next rating period will result in a "Needs Improvement" rating in that area and will jeopardize future service.
(I may have t add this to all my initial counselings from this point on...no NCO should be failing the APFT/ABCP standards)
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
hmmmmm, ok. Good response. I have to pose another test then.
So failing during a current rating period could be a Success with a failing in a consecutive rating period being a Needs Improvement. I see the logic and progression.
So, to ensure equality/fairness, how do you apply this same philosophy to all areas of performance. Example counseling discussion........
"I know you harassed another Soldier during the rating period, but on the thru date you didn't harass anyone, so you're a Success in creating a positive SHARP climate. But if you harass someone during your next rating period, you'll be a Needs Improvement."
Basically how do you say there is an expectation to meet standards when that is clearly not what you're saying in your actions.
(0)
(0)
SGM Matthew Quick
CSM, Maynard,
Because the NCO harassed someone (fail) and then didn't harass anyone else again (met standard), this would be a 'Needs Improvement' based on my previous quantifiable analysis.
Now, if the NCO harassed someone (fail) then prevented/took a stand against harassment (exceeded standard), this would calculate to a 'Success'. :)
(The above is simply a fun anecdote and not serious...if an NCO harasses another, this is a complete fail and NCO may be a toxic leader/NCO and should be dealt with accordingly).
Back to the APFT/ABCP scenario...I view it as an overall rating period and it's a balancing act with different situations.
This would (or at least will be now) all be taken care of PRIOR to rating period by setting the standards for that rating period. I would put in writing if a failure to maintain standards occurs, you will earn a 'Needs Improvement' on this rating period's evaluation.
Because the NCO harassed someone (fail) and then didn't harass anyone else again (met standard), this would be a 'Needs Improvement' based on my previous quantifiable analysis.
Now, if the NCO harassed someone (fail) then prevented/took a stand against harassment (exceeded standard), this would calculate to a 'Success'. :)
(The above is simply a fun anecdote and not serious...if an NCO harasses another, this is a complete fail and NCO may be a toxic leader/NCO and should be dealt with accordingly).
Back to the APFT/ABCP scenario...I view it as an overall rating period and it's a balancing act with different situations.
This would (or at least will be now) all be taken care of PRIOR to rating period by setting the standards for that rating period. I would put in writing if a failure to maintain standards occurs, you will earn a 'Needs Improvement' on this rating period's evaluation.
(2)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
CSM,
Comparing failing an APFT to a SHARP violation really isn't fair. The APFT failure results in a Flag or administrative action with a period allowed to recover. A SHARP violation is expected to be met with an Article 15 and a relief for cause, UCMJ and administrative with a very probable reduction in rank.
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
The APFT/ABCP failure, depending on the circumstance, would be a failure of up to two or three of these if creative license were used. A SHARP violation is a clear and unrepentant fail on all 7.
Property accountability fail, depending on whether it was due to external circumstances such as loss through theft, or a personal responsibility such as negligence, or if it was embezzlement of unit property in excess of office supplies. One will be excused, one will result in a statement of charges and one in a court martial. Not all fails are equal.
The "land" NCO in the S-3 that fails an APFT is going to be looked at differently than the Squad Leader or PSG because of their relative roles involved in maintaining unit cohesion, discipline and readiness.
In the case of the PSG, you have advocated for immediate relief for cause upon APFT failure which is a 4/3 promote as last resort senior rating at best, depending on extenuating circumstances... Even if they rate 5 excellences they will receive one needs improvement with a NO under Duty, effectively locking him out of promotion for the balance of his career. In a similar situation, were the same NCO in a staff position, he would be allowed to recover, not needing a Change of Rater following the fail, and in your own words, could recover from a 3/2 promote with peers, eventually.
Comparing failing an APFT to a SHARP violation really isn't fair. The APFT failure results in a Flag or administrative action with a period allowed to recover. A SHARP violation is expected to be met with an Article 15 and a relief for cause, UCMJ and administrative with a very probable reduction in rank.
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
The APFT/ABCP failure, depending on the circumstance, would be a failure of up to two or three of these if creative license were used. A SHARP violation is a clear and unrepentant fail on all 7.
Property accountability fail, depending on whether it was due to external circumstances such as loss through theft, or a personal responsibility such as negligence, or if it was embezzlement of unit property in excess of office supplies. One will be excused, one will result in a statement of charges and one in a court martial. Not all fails are equal.
The "land" NCO in the S-3 that fails an APFT is going to be looked at differently than the Squad Leader or PSG because of their relative roles involved in maintaining unit cohesion, discipline and readiness.
In the case of the PSG, you have advocated for immediate relief for cause upon APFT failure which is a 4/3 promote as last resort senior rating at best, depending on extenuating circumstances... Even if they rate 5 excellences they will receive one needs improvement with a NO under Duty, effectively locking him out of promotion for the balance of his career. In a similar situation, were the same NCO in a staff position, he would be allowed to recover, not needing a Change of Rater following the fail, and in your own words, could recover from a 3/2 promote with peers, eventually.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Under Part IVc I would annotate Needs Improvement (some) with a bullet that simply says "failed to maintain the standards IAW AR 600-9 during this rating period"
(2)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SGM Matthew Quick
Yes, 1SG Essig's response is valid for "Needs Improvement".
As NCOs, we should already know NOT to fail to meet standards and not maintain said standards should result in a 'Needs Improvement".
As NCOs, we should already know NOT to fail to meet standards and not maintain said standards should result in a 'Needs Improvement".
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
Like I said in another comment a NCO scores consistent 180's 190's the entire rating period vs another NCO who has a bad day and scores a 170 once then 250's and up the remaining of the rating period. I think it is a disservice to the NCO to rate that NCO as NI and the other as Success and paints an inaccurate picture for the board. Everyone has a bad day sometimes.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Let's not forget that the NCOER form rates both physical fitness AND military bearing in the same category. I feel that the individual should receive a 'success' as long as it was annotated appropriately, for example: Soldier improved a failing APPT score XX points during rated time achieving a passing score on most recent APFT. I feel this shows improvement while letting anyone who views the NCOER that at one time for some reason said individual was not meeting the basic requirements of being a Soldier. That's just my two cents, CSM.
(2)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Good explanation of your philosophy/reasoning.
Sounds like your reason is grounded in the belief that promotion panels actually have time to read the rater's bullets to see if the excellence/success was justified.
What if the panel members "trusted" the rater/senior rater and only considered the overall rating (Excellence/Success). Then those who did not meet the standard would look no different than those that did.
Would that change how you handle the situation?
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CSM, if the panel members only considered the overall rating than why am I, as the rater, required to provide a rating? If anything I feel that the first line leaders assessment of the individual should carry the most weight as they can/should be able to provide the most honest and accurate rating of the individual. Regarding whether I would change the way the situation is handled, I like to have faith in the system, but should the system fail me then I would be forced to address how/why if failed and attempt to remedy the situation. And I would be forced to keep that in mind come the next NCOER.
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Sorry, wasn't clear on the "overall rating". I meant what if the panel trusted the rater for each of the individual ratings for each of the five areas instead of reading bullets to see if the bullets justified each of the ratings.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Do they "need" one, or should they get one? I have no problem with a needs improvement for an APFT during the rated period. I have no problem relieving somebody if they can't meet basic standards either.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google