Posted on Dec 28, 2013
SFC Randy Purham
20.5K
6
15
1
1
0
The
NCOER system needs to be revamped. Here’s a proposal/idea: When a NCO arrives
to the unit, their rating scheme is established and posted to their iPERMS.
Quarterly Counselings (DA Form 2166-8-1 [OCT 2011] are done and digitally
signed/dated and accompanies the actual NCOER when the NCOER is due. This will
alleviate false raters/senior raters and also reduces the amount of “fluffed”
and “unfair” ratings. This will also hold accountable – by name – who is taking
the necessary time to develop, teach, coach and mentor rated NCOs for career
progression and professional development. In addition to forcing the superior
leadership to do their job with collaboration of the rated NCO. With each
change of rater a new rating scheme is posted after the Change of Rater NCOER
is posted. With every Annual Report (typically 2-3) should show improvement of
the rated NCO over that course of time or stagnation – depending on the OPTEMPO
and environment. This then should be the deciding factor of their next
selection/choice of assignments. This way will extract out “duds” at the Rated,
Rater and Senior Rater level and assist in force reductions that the DoD is so
anxiously trying to do. Your thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 1efa5058 NCOER
Avatar_feed
Responses: 10
LTC Program Manager
2
2
0
I would have less narrative and more blocks like the Marine NCOER. They rate 1-10 on several qualities that are reviewed based on the raters average. So if my average rating is a 4 and I give you a 5 the board sees that as a +1, but if my average is 7 they see a -2.

We need more parts of the eval that can't be inflated. The issue with the narrative is a bunch of people who never met you will decide if you get promoted or not and they will base their decision on if you are "excellent" or "outstanding".
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small
COL Vincent Stoneking
1
1
0
Fix the rating scale. Give Officers 5 blocks.
Top block is limited to 10% of ratings (yeah, superstars are rare....)
Second block is limited to 10%.
Third block is limited to 60%
Fourth & Fifth blocks are 10% each.
When the profile is busted, everybody is center-mass, with a HRC "Profile is crap" stamp.

Yes, it's hard, but center-mass is where most people should spend most of their careers. It makes no sense for 49% to be "above center mass." It also gives all the "stellar performers" an unrealistic appraisal of their abilities, making it harder for them to know how to improve.


(1)
Comment
(0)
MSG Wade Huffman
MSG Wade Huffman
7 y
Sir, How dare you attempt to inject realism into an evaluation! Seriously though, great idea! Center mass should be exactly that and it never has been.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
WO1 Humint Technician
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
Eliminating the Excellent/Success/Needs Improvement check boxes and replacing with just "Performed at or above standard or performed below standard". Letting the bullets justify themselves rather than people focusing on overhyped excellents or underhyped successes if that makes sense. And of course eliminating the senior rater blocks as well and letting THOSE bullets speak for themselves. Sick of people saying 2/2 or 3/3 are career enders when they are supposed to be success.

A close second or tied for first would be I would eliminate the mandatory bullets in the NCOER. We have crippled the leadership section with generic or at best decent bullets about SHARP and usually units cripple R&A with stupid bullets about drug and alcohol incidents.


(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close