32
32
0
By now everybody involved should have received several LPDs, or briefings, on the new NCOER. Most people understand where the Army is going with this new, improved evaluation system, but there are some people out there who are resistant to change and simply don’t like it. I believe that most of the people who haven’t bought into this yet simply do not understand why it was implemented and how it will improve our current evaluation system.
Under the new system, your evaluation will be tied to our current leadership doctrine as outlined in our Leadership Requirements Model in ADP 6-22. By linking the NCOER to our 23 Leadership Competencies and 14 Attributes every NCO, regardless of MOS or duty position, can be rated against every other NCO in that same grade. After all, leadership ability and performance isn’t tied to a duty position or MOS. Leadership is leadership. The S-1 NCOIC is evaluated on the same competencies and attributes as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant, and has the exact same opportunity to excel.
The perception that some would receive higher ratings based on their MOS/duty position came to my attention when we were doing some training on this new system. A NCO from the S-1 section made the comment that he would likely receive a lower rating than a Combat Engineer NCO in the same grade. I have to tell you that the best First Sergeant in our battalion is a Signal First Sergeant, not a Combat Engineer, and his evaluation will indicate that. If we stick to our doctrine, everybody has a fair shot at a “most qualified” box check regardless of MOS/duty position.
Another great advantage of the new system is the use of three different reports that are based on the rank of the rated NCO. One report for Sergeants (Direct Level), another for Staff Sergeants thru First Sergeant/Master Sergeant (Organizational Level), and a third for Command Sergeants’ Major/Sergeants’ Major (Strategic Level).
I personally believe that the Direct Level report for Sergeants is a fantastic developmental tool because, when rated on the competencies of: presence, intellect, leads, develops, and achieves, the rated NCO either meets standards or does not meet standards. No longer do we have an excellence, success, needs improvement (some), or needs improvement (much) for our young NCOS. When we had those “block checks” we were conditioning our young NCOs to believe that anything less than an excellence was substandard and detrimental to their career. The notion was, “if you didn’t have an among the best and a 1/1 for performance and potential, then you weren’t good enough”. That notion was learned by the force, and when they became raters, they continued the process of unintentionally inflating NCOERs. This new system has the additional benefit of reducing the reluctance on the part of the rater to look somebody in the eye and tell them that they did not meet the standard. After all, there are now only two choices, and we have seen quite often a situation where a NCO did not meet the standard and received a success simply because raters were (dare I say it?) afraid to call it like it is.
Bullet comments are still the norm when evaluating NCOs at the Direct (SGT) and Organizational (SSG-MSG/1SG) level, while narrative comments are required for the Strategic Level (SGM/CSM). There are many people who believe that bullets are sufficient for the rater portion on the SGT NCOER, but a narrative should be allowed for SSG-MSG/1SG evaluation. I’m not sure where I personally stand on that topic, but I think it is sufficient that the senior rater writes a narrative in his or her section that deals with overall potential.
I recently had a NCO sitting across from my desk, nearly in tears, because he “only” got two excellent block checks and his senior rater gave him a “2” for performance and a “1” for potential. He did not understand the evaluation system and believed that this was a career ender. I believe with this new system, young NCOs will be conditioned to understand that not everybody (by definition) can receive an excellence.
I also had a Staff Sergeant come see me because he was not pleased with the 3/3 rating he received. I sat down and went over every bullet comment, and after reading each, I asked if it represented excellence or a success. He admitted that it was accurate and indicated he did his job to standard. It turns out it was a very fair, well-written evaluation and the rated NCO agreed that the bullets equaled success, but went on to say that anything less than a 2/2 would be a “career killer”. So here I am with a Staff Sergeant who was getting an honest evaluation for the first time ever, and he was shocked that he was not quite as awesome as he believed he was. What kind of NCOERs was he writing for his subordinates? It was then that I realized that we had some educating to do within our battalion, not only in regards to writing evaluations, but also in conducting counseling.
The new system fixes most of these issues, but will require education and 100% buy in by NCOs who want to make the new system work.
Instead of an uncontrolled “box check” of 1-5, NCOs are assessed by their senior rater as being:
- MOST QUALIFIED (limited to 24%)
- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
- QUALIFIED
- NOT QUALIFIED
This rating system forces the senior rater to give an honest assessment of each NCO that he or she currently senior rates. The system will not allow a senior rater to give a “most qualified” box check to more than 24% of the NCOs he or she senior rates.
Here’s an example of how that works: If I currently senior rate SSGs, and the rater indicated on the NCOER that the rated NCO FAR EXCEEDED STANDARDS, and I believe that this NCO is MOST QUALIFIED (and check that block) for potential, I can’t give that box check again until I senior rate 8 more NCOs in the rank of SSG because my ability to do so is limited to 24% of the NCOs I senior rate for my entire career. It forces me to manage my profile so that only the absolute best receive the highest rating from the senior rater. So although the box check is important, the narrative that the Senior Rater completes is just as significant as it paints the picture of the rated NCO.
When we briefed this to our battalion last summer, some people were visibly upset. Many wondered what would happen if your profile would not support a “most qualified” for a NCO who truly deserved it. Well, the board can see your profile on the evaluation, so they will know that a profile could not support a block check of “most qualified”. We are now being forced to write well, and ensure that bullets or narratives are clear, concise and measurable.
Raters are unrestricted in that they can check the box for: far exceeded standard, exceeded standard, met standard, or did not meet standard. The form however will show how many NCOs in that grade you currently rate, as well as a historical snapshot of how many of them got what box check. This is called the Rater Tendency and is visible to the rater’s rating chain. It is important for raters to maintain a credible rating history. Raters are NOT doing you a favor if every evaluation they give is “far exceeded standard” or “exceeded standard”. Boards will look at the unusually high number of these performance box checks and get the impression that the evaluation is inflated. Remember: not everybody is a rock star. Most of us, by definition, fall in the middle ground (the average) of met standard.
I am passionate about leader development. I believe that everything we do is leader development, but we often overlook opportunities to really develop our junior leaders as well as ourselves. Opportunities exist to develop leaders not only in the field, but even when doing mundane things like post police call, vehicle maintenance, PT, or payday activities. When was the last time you took a young Soldier and helped him/her plan, resource and execute a training event? If you are finding opportunities to do these things on a daily basis, good. If not, look for opportunities (they are all around you) to teach your replacement. When the Army needs leaders, we don’t go to Monster.com to get them. We develop them from our ranks. Just think that somewhere today in our force, there is a PFC who will eventually become The Sergeant Major of the Army.
As the Army gets smaller we have a fantastic opportunity to reshape the force into a more efficient, lethal one capable of continuing our long history of excellence. It simply requires leaders today to get involved and do the hard things.
Under the new system, your evaluation will be tied to our current leadership doctrine as outlined in our Leadership Requirements Model in ADP 6-22. By linking the NCOER to our 23 Leadership Competencies and 14 Attributes every NCO, regardless of MOS or duty position, can be rated against every other NCO in that same grade. After all, leadership ability and performance isn’t tied to a duty position or MOS. Leadership is leadership. The S-1 NCOIC is evaluated on the same competencies and attributes as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant, and has the exact same opportunity to excel.
The perception that some would receive higher ratings based on their MOS/duty position came to my attention when we were doing some training on this new system. A NCO from the S-1 section made the comment that he would likely receive a lower rating than a Combat Engineer NCO in the same grade. I have to tell you that the best First Sergeant in our battalion is a Signal First Sergeant, not a Combat Engineer, and his evaluation will indicate that. If we stick to our doctrine, everybody has a fair shot at a “most qualified” box check regardless of MOS/duty position.
Another great advantage of the new system is the use of three different reports that are based on the rank of the rated NCO. One report for Sergeants (Direct Level), another for Staff Sergeants thru First Sergeant/Master Sergeant (Organizational Level), and a third for Command Sergeants’ Major/Sergeants’ Major (Strategic Level).
I personally believe that the Direct Level report for Sergeants is a fantastic developmental tool because, when rated on the competencies of: presence, intellect, leads, develops, and achieves, the rated NCO either meets standards or does not meet standards. No longer do we have an excellence, success, needs improvement (some), or needs improvement (much) for our young NCOS. When we had those “block checks” we were conditioning our young NCOs to believe that anything less than an excellence was substandard and detrimental to their career. The notion was, “if you didn’t have an among the best and a 1/1 for performance and potential, then you weren’t good enough”. That notion was learned by the force, and when they became raters, they continued the process of unintentionally inflating NCOERs. This new system has the additional benefit of reducing the reluctance on the part of the rater to look somebody in the eye and tell them that they did not meet the standard. After all, there are now only two choices, and we have seen quite often a situation where a NCO did not meet the standard and received a success simply because raters were (dare I say it?) afraid to call it like it is.
Bullet comments are still the norm when evaluating NCOs at the Direct (SGT) and Organizational (SSG-MSG/1SG) level, while narrative comments are required for the Strategic Level (SGM/CSM). There are many people who believe that bullets are sufficient for the rater portion on the SGT NCOER, but a narrative should be allowed for SSG-MSG/1SG evaluation. I’m not sure where I personally stand on that topic, but I think it is sufficient that the senior rater writes a narrative in his or her section that deals with overall potential.
I recently had a NCO sitting across from my desk, nearly in tears, because he “only” got two excellent block checks and his senior rater gave him a “2” for performance and a “1” for potential. He did not understand the evaluation system and believed that this was a career ender. I believe with this new system, young NCOs will be conditioned to understand that not everybody (by definition) can receive an excellence.
I also had a Staff Sergeant come see me because he was not pleased with the 3/3 rating he received. I sat down and went over every bullet comment, and after reading each, I asked if it represented excellence or a success. He admitted that it was accurate and indicated he did his job to standard. It turns out it was a very fair, well-written evaluation and the rated NCO agreed that the bullets equaled success, but went on to say that anything less than a 2/2 would be a “career killer”. So here I am with a Staff Sergeant who was getting an honest evaluation for the first time ever, and he was shocked that he was not quite as awesome as he believed he was. What kind of NCOERs was he writing for his subordinates? It was then that I realized that we had some educating to do within our battalion, not only in regards to writing evaluations, but also in conducting counseling.
The new system fixes most of these issues, but will require education and 100% buy in by NCOs who want to make the new system work.
Instead of an uncontrolled “box check” of 1-5, NCOs are assessed by their senior rater as being:
- MOST QUALIFIED (limited to 24%)
- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
- QUALIFIED
- NOT QUALIFIED
This rating system forces the senior rater to give an honest assessment of each NCO that he or she currently senior rates. The system will not allow a senior rater to give a “most qualified” box check to more than 24% of the NCOs he or she senior rates.
Here’s an example of how that works: If I currently senior rate SSGs, and the rater indicated on the NCOER that the rated NCO FAR EXCEEDED STANDARDS, and I believe that this NCO is MOST QUALIFIED (and check that block) for potential, I can’t give that box check again until I senior rate 8 more NCOs in the rank of SSG because my ability to do so is limited to 24% of the NCOs I senior rate for my entire career. It forces me to manage my profile so that only the absolute best receive the highest rating from the senior rater. So although the box check is important, the narrative that the Senior Rater completes is just as significant as it paints the picture of the rated NCO.
When we briefed this to our battalion last summer, some people were visibly upset. Many wondered what would happen if your profile would not support a “most qualified” for a NCO who truly deserved it. Well, the board can see your profile on the evaluation, so they will know that a profile could not support a block check of “most qualified”. We are now being forced to write well, and ensure that bullets or narratives are clear, concise and measurable.
Raters are unrestricted in that they can check the box for: far exceeded standard, exceeded standard, met standard, or did not meet standard. The form however will show how many NCOs in that grade you currently rate, as well as a historical snapshot of how many of them got what box check. This is called the Rater Tendency and is visible to the rater’s rating chain. It is important for raters to maintain a credible rating history. Raters are NOT doing you a favor if every evaluation they give is “far exceeded standard” or “exceeded standard”. Boards will look at the unusually high number of these performance box checks and get the impression that the evaluation is inflated. Remember: not everybody is a rock star. Most of us, by definition, fall in the middle ground (the average) of met standard.
I am passionate about leader development. I believe that everything we do is leader development, but we often overlook opportunities to really develop our junior leaders as well as ourselves. Opportunities exist to develop leaders not only in the field, but even when doing mundane things like post police call, vehicle maintenance, PT, or payday activities. When was the last time you took a young Soldier and helped him/her plan, resource and execute a training event? If you are finding opportunities to do these things on a daily basis, good. If not, look for opportunities (they are all around you) to teach your replacement. When the Army needs leaders, we don’t go to Monster.com to get them. We develop them from our ranks. Just think that somewhere today in our force, there is a PFC who will eventually become The Sergeant Major of the Army.
As the Army gets smaller we have a fantastic opportunity to reshape the force into a more efficient, lethal one capable of continuing our long history of excellence. It simply requires leaders today to get involved and do the hard things.
Command Post
NCOER
Evaluations
Leadership
Performance
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
5
5
0
Sounds like a good system. The rater profile reminds me of the struggle the BC's used to have with racking and stacking the officers and balancing who was really top notch compared to just good, so when they picked the best they actually were.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
This was a great read. I do like the way the evals have changed, but the units have failed in properly instructing their NCO's on these changes. We cannot just email a PowerPoint that is pretty basic to everyone and say there you go you have been informed. The only issue I have so far since I've written about 8 using this new form is that there is now less room for writing bullets. A standard 2 line bullet on the old 2166 now turns to three lines on the new form. So you barely have room to formulate informative bullet comments. I know it will just take some getting used to but it has definitely been a challenge for me and my peers so far this year. But overall I applaud the changes in the way we are rated against each other. It should definitely help with all this NCOER inflation. Now we just need a way to fix our awards system and I'll be happy for a while.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
This is all well and good if it works. I can fully understand why this needs to succeed, but an additional area will need to be fixed in the near future that can have an impact on this is the awards system and how it is implemented. An example that is well worn in some units where two soldiers one a SSG and one a SFC holding the same position as a platoon sergeant (same type of platoon) and the SFC is awarded a Bronze Star and the SSG is awarded either an ARCOM or nothing at all; and both met the same objectives and completed the mission at the same level. Then that SSG is told that he did not get a Bronze Star because it is unit policy that SFC and above get that award.
(3)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
SFC (Join to see) - While stated in different terms than I would use, I think you have the essence of the new NCOER "top block" correct. It is the same as the logic that the OER system has used in one flavor or another for at least my entire career. Most recently, they expanded the "top block" limitation to OER raters (it had been just senior raters).
In the end, there can be only so many "stellar" NCOs for rating purposes. In fact, there can be just under one in four. As MAJ (Join to see) has rightly pointed out in other discussions, and here, this does mean that TIMING and profile management will have a lot to do with who gets them.
This implies, and should drive, greater though in the dispensing of ratings. Whether it does, and what form it takes, remains to be seen. Do you just watch your profile, and give an ACOM to whomever needs a rating at just the right time? Do you purposely give less than the maximum number of ACOMs you could, so that you have a cushion for when you really WANT to give one to a Soldier? Do you believe that if 24% is the "max" that it should also be the "min"? Are you rating people against their peers, or the entire Army population? There are a lot of things that senior NCOs and Junior Officers will need to become fairly sophisticated at thinking about regarding NCOER and their philosophies. Because this is how the OER system has been, I have opinions on all the above, but I know peers that have come to different opinions.
In the end, there can be only so many "stellar" NCOs for rating purposes. In fact, there can be just under one in four. As MAJ (Join to see) has rightly pointed out in other discussions, and here, this does mean that TIMING and profile management will have a lot to do with who gets them.
This implies, and should drive, greater though in the dispensing of ratings. Whether it does, and what form it takes, remains to be seen. Do you just watch your profile, and give an ACOM to whomever needs a rating at just the right time? Do you purposely give less than the maximum number of ACOMs you could, so that you have a cushion for when you really WANT to give one to a Soldier? Do you believe that if 24% is the "max" that it should also be the "min"? Are you rating people against their peers, or the entire Army population? There are a lot of things that senior NCOs and Junior Officers will need to become fairly sophisticated at thinking about regarding NCOER and their philosophies. Because this is how the OER system has been, I have opinions on all the above, but I know peers that have come to different opinions.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Seen that one too many times where a Ssg is not awarded a BSM when the majority of SFCs and above are blanketed BSMs. Stings when you know you poured your heart and soul into a deployment and end up with the same award as the junior leader meanwhile the SFC managing the MWR tent gets the higher award...
(3)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Lol that's funny, this was one of my first thoughts as well. Now that we revamped NCOERs lets go after the awards system as well.
(2)
(0)
SA Daryl Foster
Thanks for the lengthy response. I will be presenting aspects of it in class tonight. https://happywheels2.io
Play Happy Wheels - Your goal is to complete various challenges, overcome deadly obstacles and lose as few limbs as possible! Ignore the blood and keep going!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
As an officer, the new NCOER actually looks more "familiar" as it's more in line with how OERs are done. As far as the distribution of block ratings, that is just going to take time for the new culture to take affect like it did when they tightened OER blocks. A COM with strongly worded rater comments is a good eval. COM with meh comments is not. And board members are saavy enough to distinguish between the two.
(3)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Indeed. Officers went though this same process about 6 years ago. It could have been before that, but I honestly didn't pay any attention to how they did their evaluations. Also, and I may be committing a grave sin here, but EES is not a very user friendly system. Adding delegates and giving them the right permissions. Having to do everything in Word and then copying it in because the system kicks you out every 3 minutes. These are all software things that we need to get fixed,
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
CSM (Join to see) - Officers have had this at the Senior Rater level for at least my career. With varying degrees of rigor. A few years back, it was imposed at the rater level as well. To be clear, I approve, and would make the ACOM [whatever they call it today] % lower.
EES sucks.
EES sucks.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
CSM (Join to see) You did a great job of explaining the system. The shock effect on the troops used to getting top ratings would be interesting. Finally, leaders need to start being frank, honest and direct.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Great comments. I hope your enthusiasm and positive attitude reflects the future, but I worry that the forced distribution, as with OERs, now makes timing, rater and senior rater profiles, and whether or not an NCO gets an MQ box check more important than actual performance and potential. After all, boards spend so little time evaluating files for promotion and retention that all board members really have time for is a quick glance at box checks (or so I've heard).
I also think situations you describe with disappointed NCOs is about to exponentially increase across the force. I'd guess there aren't many first sergeants or SGMs or CSMs serving today that have ever received less than top block NCOERs, and that our senior NCOs are in for a massive period of adjustment. Hopefully they are like you and grasp the concept that very, very few folks at any rank in any unit will be receiving a top block NCOER, and that this is ok.
I also think situations you describe with disappointed NCOs is about to exponentially increase across the force. I'd guess there aren't many first sergeants or SGMs or CSMs serving today that have ever received less than top block NCOERs, and that our senior NCOs are in for a massive period of adjustment. Hopefully they are like you and grasp the concept that very, very few folks at any rank in any unit will be receiving a top block NCOER, and that this is ok.
(3)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
I think your concerns are valid. I seriously hope that this new system FORCES raters and senior raters to conduct counseling. In both of the instances I gave where the rated NCO was upset over the evaluation they were not properly counseled. Yes, they had the right counseling dates on their old NCO counseling checklist, but nobody looked them in the eye and said, "I senior rate three NCOs in your grade. You are number three of three and here is why".
Senior raters will have to really manage their profiles carefully. Generally if there is a post-platoon leader 1LT working as the assistant to the assistant plans officer, he is not going to get a ACOM from the senior rater unless he or she is so hot they are setting the standard for everybody. The board understands, and the rated officer should, that this is not a KD position. Put that same 1LT as a company XO and the ACOM becomes that much more important and we can hope that the Senior Rater has managed his or her profile so that those who are deserving get that ACOM.
We have to do the same thing on the NCO side of the house.
Where it is going to hurt everybody in the Army is the SFC level. A Company Commander will, at the time he or she takes command, have likely senior rated ZERO Sergeants First Class. He will likely be able to only give ONE MOST QUALIFIED during his entire time in command. Does that mean that is the only guy or gay who will be selected for Master Sergeant? No, because the Army will still require Master Sergeants.
It is going to be a difficult process, but I am going to remain optimistic.
Senior raters will have to really manage their profiles carefully. Generally if there is a post-platoon leader 1LT working as the assistant to the assistant plans officer, he is not going to get a ACOM from the senior rater unless he or she is so hot they are setting the standard for everybody. The board understands, and the rated officer should, that this is not a KD position. Put that same 1LT as a company XO and the ACOM becomes that much more important and we can hope that the Senior Rater has managed his or her profile so that those who are deserving get that ACOM.
We have to do the same thing on the NCO side of the house.
Where it is going to hurt everybody in the Army is the SFC level. A Company Commander will, at the time he or she takes command, have likely senior rated ZERO Sergeants First Class. He will likely be able to only give ONE MOST QUALIFIED during his entire time in command. Does that mean that is the only guy or gay who will be selected for Master Sergeant? No, because the Army will still require Master Sergeants.
It is going to be a difficult process, but I am going to remain optimistic.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
You're on to something: counseling is important, not just for junior enlisted, and counseling is rarely, if ever, done (not done correctly, I mean it is just rarely ever done, period).
I agree with what you say about SFCs, but I think this probably applies to just about all ranks. That new brigade commander probably has never senior-rated CSMs before, and in a 5-battalion brigade, over the course of a 48-month brigade command, the brigade commander will be able to give, what, two MQs. That's 7-9 CSMs in that brigade who are going to walk away without a top block on their bn csm NCOER. That's tough news.
I agree with what you say about SFCs, but I think this probably applies to just about all ranks. That new brigade commander probably has never senior-rated CSMs before, and in a 5-battalion brigade, over the course of a 48-month brigade command, the brigade commander will be able to give, what, two MQs. That's 7-9 CSMs in that brigade who are going to walk away without a top block on their bn csm NCOER. That's tough news.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
Its good to know that the USAF isn't the only service that thinks rewriting the evaluation will somehow make it better.
(3)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
I will have to claim total ignorance when it comes to how the USAF does evaluations. The Army, instead of just changing things around on a form, took the approach of tying the evaluation to our doctrine. What will make this a success or a complete failure is: effective counseling and the rated NCO owning their support form.
(2)
(0)
TSgt David L.
CSM (Join to see) - You aren't the only one who can claim ignorance. It (enlisted eval form/process) seems to change with the wind sometimes. They try to deflate the system (Calling the NE Patriots!! LOL) only to have it go back to the inflated process.
Like you have said, it is HOW it is used and whether the standards are met.
Like you have said, it is HOW it is used and whether the standards are met.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
as a former leader i can say this sucks, but in the new reshaping i can see the view get the best and forget the rest
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Sergeant Major, I am at BLC right now and I am slaying my requirements. However, TRADOC has not pushed any training on this new NCOER system. This is frustrating as I have been a Sergeant in the Army Reserve for a year and while it took time to get to this school, my thoughts were that more than anything I would be able to take away training on how the NCOER system works. MY SGLs were kind enough to teach the class a little bit about the system as a sort of, "we want you to know but you cant take it as the TRADOC Standard of training." I feel like based on what I have learned about the new system, it makes it a lot harder to "Fluff" a Rating. However, my response more than anything is in the form of a question.
Why has the army rolled out a new system but not rolled out training in the NCO schools?
Why has the army rolled out a new system but not rolled out training in the NCO schools?
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Also, thank you for expanding on it from your position. It helps me understand it from "the other side of the table" perspective.
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
I can't answer for what the USAR did (or in this case did not do), but on the active side there was a requirement for everybody to get a LPD on the new system. If you go to the HRC main page there are links to the training that the AC side of the house took.
Why haven't the schools implemented training on this? What would you like them to cut out in order to teach this class? They only have so many contact hours in the POI and somebody at USASMA (they own the POI for BLC) has determined that other subjects are more important.
Culturally this new system is going to cause a lot of growing pains. A senior rater can ONLY give 24% of the NCOs he or she senior rates a "MOST QUALIFIED". Officers can still give 49% of them a "Top Block".
I would suggest you spend a lot of time at the HRC site and download the training slides. Also get on there and fill out your support form.
Why haven't the schools implemented training on this? What would you like them to cut out in order to teach this class? They only have so many contact hours in the POI and somebody at USASMA (they own the POI for BLC) has determined that other subjects are more important.
Culturally this new system is going to cause a lot of growing pains. A senior rater can ONLY give 24% of the NCOs he or she senior rates a "MOST QUALIFIED". Officers can still give 49% of them a "Top Block".
I would suggest you spend a lot of time at the HRC site and download the training slides. Also get on there and fill out your support form.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google