I logged in today and noticed I have a Senior Rater Profile (SR Profile) now. Its pretty cool but it only applies if I was SR to an Officer. I think it kind of defeats the purpose but I do like the idea of it tracking now many NCOER's I have turned in and how many were posted late. Nice... I better stay on the unit or I look bad.
What do you think about changing the NCOER to reflect a Center of Mass (COM) and Above Center of Mass (ACOM) block instead of the 1,2,3 or 4 or 5 block for the SR?
What about the idea of the Rater having a profile to bring down the number of over-inflated NCOER's and make the Rater think about when they really want to use their ACOM bullets instead of Among the Best - Fully Capable & Marginal blocks?
Just wondering what you think about it...
As a former NCOER clerk in a BN S-1 Shop, I saw almost every NCOER that got written. I did see too many 1/1 NCOERs without even having known many of the rated NCOs. It is my understanding (from the reg) that 1/1 evaluations are for those truly rare NCOs who go above and beyond in their performance, dedication to their subordinates and units, and have the highest potential for future performance.
When I see every other NCOER being a 1/1, it devalues what a 1/1 truly is (or should be). How can every NCO be "Among the Best"? It also does a disservice to the rated NCO, as s/he has to maintain that 1/1 performance his/her entire career, or risk having to explain a fall from 1/1 to anything else. It looks like a drop in performance and/or potential.
I think there *should* be a maximum of 1/1 evaluations a Senior Rater can award. This will make Senior Raters really think about who and what a 1/1 really is.
The battalion commander senior rates every company level officer aside of the company commanders (unless they choose not to have the BN XO rate the S-shop OICs) in their battalion. That is an easy 20 to 40 people. It is at least close to 20 if we're only talking about second and first lieutenants.
This allows for a balanced picture of 9 out of 20 through 19 out of 40 high performers. That number allows for a certain statistical comfort that they're not screwing an exceptional batch of awesome junior officers or elevating some mediocre ones.
At the company level, I was senior rating two sergeants E-5 and my chief was senior rating one staff sergeant. My company commander was senior rating the section NCOICs and platoon sergeants, bringing him up to a mix of a total 10 staff sergeants and sergeants first class. This may be a sustainment WfF issue, but I don't think there could be a fair above/below center mass differentiation at such a low number of people.
The problem is that the senior rater positions differ so much for NCOs until you hit master sergeant or higher. Officers start out with a senior rater in a field grade position who has close to twenty years of experience and a large pool of rated officers at their skill level. Sergeants through sergeants first class are being senior rated by staff sergeants in sergeant first class positions through majors in XO or positions on the low scale of senior rater seniority. Those senior raters have a limited pool from which their rating average is drawn and at times a limited understanding of performance & potential due to their own lack of experience.
This would hamper a key goal of the ERS: Giving a solid picture of performance and potential of the rated Soldier to the DA in order to build an OML for promotions and eliminations. Even instituting a senior rater profile for qualified senior raters of NCOs would create the issue of disparity in the quality of the NCOER based on what position the senior rater held, which messes with the above cited goal of making the best choice for promotions and eliminations.
I believe the proposed new NCOER splits at E-5 - E-8 and E-9 for just that reason. All sergeants major will have similarly qualified senior raters based on their senior enlisted service experience ASIs and that will enable the senior rater profile as a qualitative tool for selection.