Posted on Jul 24, 2015
Can a Junior Grade Warrant Officer rate another Junior Grade Warrant Officer?
35.9K
5
8
3
3
0
I reviewed AR 623–3 and the DA Pam and couldn't find anything saying otherwise. Only found a Senior Rater requirement of O-4 or higher. If it is a common situation of CW2s rating WO1s or other CW2s, is it a bad thing to be evaluated by a peer when it comes to future promotion boards?
Posted in these groups: 
OER
Warrant Officers
OER Warrant Officers
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
I would be hesitant to have company grade warrant rate another company grade with the new OER and the regulation changes. Now that Raters have profiles like Sr Raters, these will be more of a factor on promotion boards in the future. Also the regulation changed that your Sr Rater HAS to be your Rater's Rater. Prior to the new OER, it was recommended but not required. If their Rater is not an O4 or above, you may find yourself in a bind when it comes time for your OER to be completed. Talk to your S1 and your leadership about it and bring up your concerns. Most leaders are willing to listen to you. Dig into the AR and show them the requirements for O4 Sr Rater and Rater's Rater as Sr Rater. They may not be aware of it.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
What happens, CW5 (Join to see) , when they are not willing to listen? The way my current detachment is structured, we have the commander (MAJ), ops officer/deputy (CPT), CND planner (CW4), detachment NCOIC (MSG), and four teams, each headed by a MAJ slot, with two CW3 slots (255A/255N) and a team NCOIC slot (SFC).
At least in my team, the 255N is rating the NCOIC, I'm rating the 255N, and the team OIC is rating me, while the detachment commander rates my team OIC. This smells entirely fishy to me, and I was told, when I raised the issue of 623-3 basically saying to rate someone you should supervise them....that they were doing this to maximize the number of top blocks.
To be honest, I think they were doing it to minimize the number of OERs the detachment commander has to senior rate.
At least in my team, the 255N is rating the NCOIC, I'm rating the 255N, and the team OIC is rating me, while the detachment commander rates my team OIC. This smells entirely fishy to me, and I was told, when I raised the issue of 623-3 basically saying to rate someone you should supervise them....that they were doing this to maximize the number of top blocks.
To be honest, I think they were doing it to minimize the number of OERs the detachment commander has to senior rate.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
The story that they are maximizing the number of top blocks is a fallacy. There are two premises we have to go off of to explain how this doesn’t work.
1. No one has a senior rater profile
2. No one leaves the unit for five years.
This gives all senior rater's a silver bullet (top block) they can use on the first OER they senior rate. Then they are not able to give another one until the 5th OER they senior rate.
If all four teams go with the same rating scheme as yours, this allows all the 255Ns to get a top block their first year and their fifth year. It allows only one 255A to get a top block the first year. For the next three years, only the 255As are competing for the top blocks. Two of them can get one each year. This is assuming the senior rater does not hold on to one. In the fifth year, all the 255Ns can once again get a top block and only one of the 255As can. This provides a maximum of 16 top blocks available over a 5-year period.
If the Major is the senior rater for all eight of the W2s, he can only give three top blocks the first year, and up to four every year after that. This provides a better chance for all eight W2s to get a top block throughout the 5-year period with a maximum of 19 top blocks available.
While the second method puts more work on the Major, it should provide a healthier and more competitive atmosphere in the unit. How hard is someone really going to work knowing they have no chance of getting a top block for three years? If half of you can get one each year, you will strive to work harder for it and your higher performance will better the unit and the Army.
If they are unwilling to listen, then all you can do is salute the flag and drive on. At least you tried to advise them of a better way. At the end of the day, that’s all you can do.
1. No one has a senior rater profile
2. No one leaves the unit for five years.
This gives all senior rater's a silver bullet (top block) they can use on the first OER they senior rate. Then they are not able to give another one until the 5th OER they senior rate.
If all four teams go with the same rating scheme as yours, this allows all the 255Ns to get a top block their first year and their fifth year. It allows only one 255A to get a top block the first year. For the next three years, only the 255As are competing for the top blocks. Two of them can get one each year. This is assuming the senior rater does not hold on to one. In the fifth year, all the 255Ns can once again get a top block and only one of the 255As can. This provides a maximum of 16 top blocks available over a 5-year period.
If the Major is the senior rater for all eight of the W2s, he can only give three top blocks the first year, and up to four every year after that. This provides a better chance for all eight W2s to get a top block throughout the 5-year period with a maximum of 19 top blocks available.
While the second method puts more work on the Major, it should provide a healthier and more competitive atmosphere in the unit. How hard is someone really going to work knowing they have no chance of getting a top block for three years? If half of you can get one each year, you will strive to work harder for it and your higher performance will better the unit and the Army.
If they are unwilling to listen, then all you can do is salute the flag and drive on. At least you tried to advise them of a better way. At the end of the day, that’s all you can do.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Keith Dolliver
As I understand it, your rater should be your immediate supervisor and your senior rater should be your rater's rater, provided they also meet the grade for the senior rater requirement. In the event they don't, then it would go to their rater. This is very common in aviation since many junior warrants are often in platoon level positions and are therefore rated by their Platoon Leader. Being rated by their Platoon Leaders, usually a 1LT, their senior rater should be the Company Commander, but as the majority of Company Commanders are CPTs they do not meet the senior rater requirement so almost all platoon level WOs end up being senior rated by the Battalion Commander. The only exception is MEDEVAC companies and a limited number of other non-standard aviation units which have MAJs as their Company Commanders and therefore serve as the senior rater.
CW5 (Join to see) I would be interested to hear your thoughts/opinion on LTs rating W-3s. It seems like an interesting contradiction, having a relatively junior company grade officer rate a field grade warrant on a field grade plate OER.
CW5 (Join to see) I would be interested to hear your thoughts/opinion on LTs rating W-3s. It seems like an interesting contradiction, having a relatively junior company grade officer rate a field grade warrant on a field grade plate OER.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Hey Kameron, the only rater requirement I am aware of is senior by date of rank. So, yes they can although it's not commonly done. One other small note, junior grades are no more. We are now company grade (W1 and W2), field grade (3s and 4s), and senior field grades (W5s). Just recently saw that in a pub (600-20 I think?) so thought I would share. Hope all is well out in Korea!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Oh, and to answer your question about it being a bad thing, I would say not really. I personally wouldn't prefer it and wouldn't recommend seeking it out, but promotion tends to be based more on the senior rater portion of your OER from what I hear. I will defer to more senior folks than I to answer this from experience but I wouldn't see it as too much cause for concern either way, especially during W1/W2 time.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google