NCOER
NCOER
Posted on Sep 1, 2021
Can someone put "Did not Meet standard" under character for "some issues we had" which was never counseled?
Suspended Profile
6.2K
37
16
NCOER coming up and the rater put "Does not meet standard" for the character bullet. Have had no counselings to support that or even a face to face talk about performance. The councelings that I have are the initial, a post field counseling which was a good one, and that is all for my entire rated time.
Thank you for the help
Thank you for the help
Posted in these groups: 
NCOER
Leadership Development
NCOER Leadership Development
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
They can, but an unsubstantiated bullet does not bode well for the rater and can be appealed easily. Definitely need to get back with the rater and perform the counseling. Post that event, you may want to seek out your senior rater.
A counseling is just a record of a conversation.
The lack of a counseling does not negate good or bad behavior.
If you , for example, get a DUI and run over a nun, whether there is a counseling or not, it can still go on your NCOER.
The same is true of positive things. If you rescued a nun from a burning building, whether there is a counseling or not, it can still go on your NCOER.
Your evaluations are a reflection of your behavior and performance. Nowhere in AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) does it say anything to the effect of "only items mentioned in counseling's can be placed in an evaluation". That's just not a thing, though I know you'll meet many that will swear it is.
The lack of a counseling does not negate good or bad behavior.
If you , for example, get a DUI and run over a nun, whether there is a counseling or not, it can still go on your NCOER.
The same is true of positive things. If you rescued a nun from a burning building, whether there is a counseling or not, it can still go on your NCOER.
Your evaluations are a reflection of your behavior and performance. Nowhere in AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) does it say anything to the effect of "only items mentioned in counseling's can be placed in an evaluation". That's just not a thing, though I know you'll meet many that will swear it is.
MSG Thomas Currie
All of what you said is true, but... If a soldier did 'get a DUI and run over a nun' THAT is the bullet comment. Simply "Did not meet standard' should NEVER be entered as a bullet comment on an evaluation, and no competent approver in their right mind would approve an evaluation with such a bullet comment, regardless of the reason. At an absolute minimum such a comment would need to say WHAT STANDARD the soldier failed to meet.
SFC Michael Hasbun
MSG Thomas Currie "Did not meet standard" is a block check. It's not a comment at all. The comments would be added in the section to the right of the "Did/Did not meet standard" block check.
MSG Thomas Currie
SFC Michael Hasbun - That should be true (as I said) but I guess you missed reading the original question which said specifically "the rater put "Does not meet standard" for the character bullet." And he also explained that there was nothing stating how or why he failed to meet the standard. His description may or may not be accurate, but HIS POST is what both of us were supposed to be responding to.
As all have said, a negative comment on an NCOER/OER needs substantiation. So without it it's pretty easy to push back on. That will look poorly on the rater, the Sr. Rater that let it go through, and the command team that has to deal with the HRC kick back that shows up on the evaluation matrix which now pushes your NCOER into the late column your Battalion Commander's S1 shop will see.
Every single person in this rating process just wants to move forward with these things and get onto the next one.
Which, in this case indicates to me the rater themselves is "new" to this process. Otherwise they would have lined their ducks up, or at the very least restrained their evaluation comments negative or otherwise to documented events. A lot of negative things can be said without actually checking the does not meet standard box.
That said........... Remember, if the rater is positioning themselves to a less than ideal NCOER just because you make them retract this bullet and Meet/Did Not Meet doesn't mean they can't go back and find something else. Not all bad comments "need" counselings.
Example: I had a Sr NCO abuse his GTC and Brigade pulled his admin rights over the company level GTC oversight program. A counseling from me wasn't needed in this case because it was documented up the wazoo from higher. He did get counseling, yes, but the e-mails back and forth between me and higher and the GTC statements and everything associated before the counseling would have been enough. Being flagged is enough, being hit with any sort of legal actions. Any sort of documentation is fine in replace of a "counseling". My view about counselings being the documentation supporting a negative comment mean the event was pretty minor. Otherwise there would be a police report, failed ACFT H/W, drug abuse flag, etc...
I'm saying this because I'm trying to help. Maybe I shouldn't be helping. Maybe you deserve it. But I'm saying these things just as much to you as I am potential raters. I would tread lightly how you push back on this NCOER.
If I was a rater, and I had it out for someone to make sure they got hammered on an Eval and a comment I wrote was pushed back on without substantiating justification I would take the time to go back and find something I could justify. In the case of the original question, we do not know what that situation is.
For example, if you are late constantly to work, and that probably is a requirement of an initial counseling it's probably pretty easy for the rater to go back and find documentation of communicating your lateness in past texts or e-mails. But I don't think it's realistic to expect a rater to counsel soldiers with a counseling form every single time they are late. YES, I have seen NCO's use counseling forms as a weapon, but that blew back on them as documented abuse as well.
The rater in this case is also probably going to be coached how to write better NCOERs that don't create drama. Because there are a lot of evals that are trying to be pushed through and I'm pretty sure 1SG's, CSM's and Officers get annoyed when one or two of them drag the system.
Every single person in this rating process just wants to move forward with these things and get onto the next one.
Which, in this case indicates to me the rater themselves is "new" to this process. Otherwise they would have lined their ducks up, or at the very least restrained their evaluation comments negative or otherwise to documented events. A lot of negative things can be said without actually checking the does not meet standard box.
That said........... Remember, if the rater is positioning themselves to a less than ideal NCOER just because you make them retract this bullet and Meet/Did Not Meet doesn't mean they can't go back and find something else. Not all bad comments "need" counselings.
Example: I had a Sr NCO abuse his GTC and Brigade pulled his admin rights over the company level GTC oversight program. A counseling from me wasn't needed in this case because it was documented up the wazoo from higher. He did get counseling, yes, but the e-mails back and forth between me and higher and the GTC statements and everything associated before the counseling would have been enough. Being flagged is enough, being hit with any sort of legal actions. Any sort of documentation is fine in replace of a "counseling". My view about counselings being the documentation supporting a negative comment mean the event was pretty minor. Otherwise there would be a police report, failed ACFT H/W, drug abuse flag, etc...
I'm saying this because I'm trying to help. Maybe I shouldn't be helping. Maybe you deserve it. But I'm saying these things just as much to you as I am potential raters. I would tread lightly how you push back on this NCOER.
If I was a rater, and I had it out for someone to make sure they got hammered on an Eval and a comment I wrote was pushed back on without substantiating justification I would take the time to go back and find something I could justify. In the case of the original question, we do not know what that situation is.
For example, if you are late constantly to work, and that probably is a requirement of an initial counseling it's probably pretty easy for the rater to go back and find documentation of communicating your lateness in past texts or e-mails. But I don't think it's realistic to expect a rater to counsel soldiers with a counseling form every single time they are late. YES, I have seen NCO's use counseling forms as a weapon, but that blew back on them as documented abuse as well.
The rater in this case is also probably going to be coached how to write better NCOERs that don't create drama. Because there are a lot of evals that are trying to be pushed through and I'm pretty sure 1SG's, CSM's and Officers get annoyed when one or two of them drag the system.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
That is not to say, as SFC Michael Hasbun pointed out, that you Did meet the standard, but it should be spelled out in the evaluation how you didn't. A counseling should have occurred to give you the chance to correct the deficiency. I coach raters that the evaluation is not the time for such corrections and efforts should be made to develop leaders so those types of ratings never appear unless the rated NCO forces it by not developing.
You are doing the right thing. Own your evaluation good or bad, but make sure you are having conversations that indicate your desire to continue to develop. You earn every rating on your evaluation regardless if you like it or not.