Enlisted Evaluations still broken......

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I was talking to someone earlier today and they brought up something I had seen before. He recently saw someone go to Mast, and the person's subsequent discipline marks had multiple 7s.
I was wondering if someone could explain this to me. Can you give me an example of something you would take someone to Mast for, yet still see their performance as exceptional in multiple areas.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I got two words for that, "flabber - gasted."

I guess in a non-alcohol related situation you could have someone who was pegging out in Health and Well Being, but I am with you... I just don't see how someone who goes to mast gets multiple 7's in discipline marks. I guess the only way to really know how that works is to talk an Approving Official who has actually done that.

[AMTCM John Long]

Not knowing all the details in this case.....

Yes I can see it depending on the eval category and how the unit applies the enlisted eval system.

With the above said, it's called avoidence of the "halo effect". That is you do not let the short-comings in several eval categories have an effect on the other non-related eval categories.

Same concept with doing same paygrade evals. I have seen supervisors put all their E4's (or E5, E6's) in a group and say no E4 can have a total more than say.....100. Even though one of the E4's walks on water, he/she will not get over a 100 because none of the other E4's will get it and so it drags down the high performer. Likewise related...I have seen units say E4's will not get over 100, E5's will not get over 110, E'6's will not get over 120, etc. regardless of how well one might perform. At one of my units in the 1980's, I remember seeing all the E6's sit down in a room and do the E4 or E5 evals. Even though some of the E6's were not in the E4/5's chain of command, they were working on their evals. That would get me pissed, especially as the command supported this style of marking people. One of the thoughts was it gave all the E6's the chance to get their own pracs signed off.....much like an officer trying to collect OER fodder. So much for marking people as individuals!!! :mad: :mad:

Anywho....back in the early 1990's, I think it was the old E7 or E8 MRN course talk about the halo effect trap and how to avoid it.

Again, not knowing the whole story in Stu's example, kinda hard to be specific.

John

[BMCS Chris Wright]

Without knowing the specifics, I can guess at a couple different scenarios. If the mast was for inappropriate relationship I can see low marks in Judgement, Integrity, Setting an Example etc. But why should the mast affect the marks of Professional, Specialty Knowledge; Using Resources, Monitoring Work Safety, Stamina etc?

Similar example for a person going to mast for being consistently late, disobeying a direct order, or an alcohol situation.

I won't hijack this thread and go into the huge numbers of 7's that I am seeing and how a 4 or 5 seems to be considered a "bad" mark. :mad:

Chris

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I'm talking about a set of discipline marks. Why would someone want to apply a Halo effect....... following a Mast? Do they think that enough 7s will negative the effects of the Mast?

Chris, would you consider someone in an inappropriate relationship excelling in professionalism? Also, that specialty knowledge....... excelling at that while violating the UCMJ?
I understand that the offensive isn't going to lower every mark....... but giving someone multiple 7s while Masting them blows my mind.

I've seen this more than once, so I can't really give specifics. But if you're giving someone a 2 or 3 in Health and Well Being, Setting the Example, or Integrity...... I can't see giving the same person a 7 in Directing Others, Professionalism, Developing Subordinates, Military Bearing, ...... again in a set of Discipline Marks.

[BMCS Chris Wright]

Master Chief,
Let's go with the inappropriate relationship scenario. I can see the situation where you have an outstanding performer, who has earned 7's in some of the work related factors in the past, and whose work has remained at that level. You mast him for the 8H violation, but if all his marks drop dramatically, then it seems there is a "reverse halo" effect going on. He screwed up in one area and all his marks suffer. The criteria for a 6 in Professional/Specialty Knowledge states:

"Consistently demonstrated outstanding knowledge and skills; performed all tasks. Developed and analyzed alternatives needed to solve difficult problems."

Nowhere, that I see, does a mast in the above scenario affect this factor. I agree that probably 1/2 to 3/4 of the marks would be dropped dramatically for the mast. But to deflate a mark for criteria other than what is written would be the same as artificially inflating the Work Life Sensitivity factor because the guy is an outstanding worker. The actions need to be compared to the criteria in both cases.

Chris

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

A vast number of 7's on any set of marks always raises an eyebrow for me. That might just be me though. On the other hand, I think that if someone does something that sends them to mast, the marks should reflect in the area in which the person failed and not an across the board slam. Simply read the criteria for each mark and mark them accordingly. If you try to make the one problem fit in every mark, then you are missing the boat. I believe in boiling a problem down to it's root and then fixing it. Maybe that is what the person was trying to do. Someone might be incredibly knowledgable and know full well that they were making a stupid or risky decision. That is the difference between being stupid and being ignorant. Stupid knows that they they are doing wrong, while ignorant should know but might not.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

First, if someone gets a 7 on discipline marks that doesn't mean the system is broken.

EER's should be specific to the period being evaluated for. If the member meets the criteria for low marks, mark them low. If they meet the criteria for higher marks, give them higher marks. Discipline marks are no different. The member will get lower marks in those areas that relate to the discipline matter, but if they should have higher marks in other areas the discipline shouldn't keep that from happening.

I'm u/w and don't have ready access to an EER worksheet, but the following competencies come to mind when thinking about someone getting a 7 on discipline evals...of course it all depends on what the discipline is for.

- Respecting Others
- Administrative Ability
- Organization
- Using Resources
- Monitoring Work
- Stamina
- Communicating

I'm sure there's more, but that's off the top of my head.

Discipline marks shouldn't disqualify someone from getting a 7 where deserved.

[BMCS Eric Guerette]

I think that if someone does something that sends them to mast, the marks should reflect in the area in which the person failed and not an across the board slam. Simply read the criteria for each mark and mark them accordingly. If you try to make the one problem fit in every mark, then you are missing the boat.

I agree. If all of the marks go down because of discipline or up because of any one factor, then we would only need one performance factor. Every factor is related, but they have to be separated and evaluated individually.
The system is broken; it allows us to be too subjective. There is very little consistency, just look at the responses here. No two of us would give the same set of marks to anyone.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, I'm talking about a set of discipline marks. Why would someone want to apply a Halo effect....... following a Mast? Do they think that enough 7s will negative the effects of the Mast?

Chris, would you consider someone in an inappropriate relationship excelling in professionalism? Also, that specialty knowledge....... excelling at that while violating the UCMJ?
I understand that the offensive isn't going to lower every mark....... but giving someone multiple 7s while Masting them blows my mind.

I've seen this more than once, so I can't really give specifics. But if you're giving someone a 2 or 3 in Health and Well Being, Setting the Example, or Integrity...... I can't see giving the same person a 7 in Directing Others, Professionalism, Developing Subordinates, Military Bearing, ...... again in a set of Discipline Marks.

Stu,

I suppose I'd have to go back to basics and ask what is the purpose of a set of D-marks? I looked at the PersMan, (Art 10.B.). It doesn't specifically say what dimensions should be lowered. Probably because it will depend on the infraction. It does tell you the purpose of evals. Among them, provide a roadmap for improvement and in the case of D-marks.....initiate PSC to take action for SWE eligibility, GCM eligibility, etc.

A few years back, PSC-adv put out a newsletter that discussed this very topic. It provided examples of the infraction and what possible areas should be tagged. If someone wants to email PSC-adv, I'd think they could email an old copy of that newsletter.

I'll stick with the idea that if the evals are used as listed in the PersMan, it could be possible for 7's on a set of D-marks. Just depends on the infraction and how the member was performing at the time of NJP. To lower numerous dimensions because "we can develop a relationship" to the infraction seems to be misusing the eval system thru the halo effect. Members are marked against the written standard of each dimension, not what dots we can connect together. That was the point I was trying to elaborate.

John

[MKC Chad Royer]

I'd have to agree with the majority on this one, it would be the same as marking someone low based totaly on one incident during a marking period and not thier performance over the course of the entire period.

Chad

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris,

"Consistently demonstrated outstanding knowledge and skills; performed all tasks. Developed and analyzed alternatives needed to solve difficult problems."

I know it's subjective, but wouldn't you agree that anyone in a leadership position should be enforcing Comdt standards. Under the... performed all tasks,.... wouldn't involvement in an inappropriate relationship be able to show that isn't happening. Inappropriate relationships are one of the fastest ways to lose a command cadre position.

Deane, just going by the written standard, I have a hard time buying off that a person gets 7s in some of those areas during a regular marking period, let alone post discipline. I take Jim's raised eyebrow and raise you a chuckle when I look at some people's marks.

Chad, isn't the discipline based on the one incident? Let's say that you have a stellar performing BMC who gets a DUI. Would you see yourself signing off on a set of marks where you give him a 2 or 3 in Health and Well Being,..... but 7s in Setting an Example and Developing Subordinates...... based on that one incident?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Let me preface this with ... I haven't seen an evaluation sheet for many years, but, ever since the begining in 1983, alot of factors were inter-related, not all of them, but alot.

That interrelationship will cause a set of discipline marks to affect a few catagories.

A current discussion of that inter-relationship would prove interesting as well as provide information so all affected factors can be consistent.

In the final analysis, I can see those not relating to the discipline remaining high.

[MKC Chad Royer]

Stu,

The comparison I meant was, what you where discussing about diciplinary marks vs. what I said about a regular set of marks.

Chad

[BMCS Chris Wright]

I definately agree that many of the marks are inter-related and could be significantly lowered due to a single incident, especially if that incident resulted in a mast. As to the specific example of enforcing COMDT standards, yes it could be interpreted into the "performed all tasks" but I read that factor as being technical knowledge, rather than leadership knowledge (if that makes any sense). There are other places to accurately reflect the member not complying with COMDT standards, such as:

Responsibility (for a 6): . . . Consistently held self, subordinates, and others accountable for performance and behavior. Actively persuaded others to support policies and decisions even if unpopular. Outstanding leader that aggressively worked to ensure that standards were uniformly enforced.

As much as the marking system is supposed to be black-and-white, any time people grade other people there will be subjectivity. How you mark a member and how I do, could be very different, even if we both believe we are adhereing to the written criteria. Other factors that may not be affected by a mast, in my opinion, are:

Stamina
Quality of Work
Monitoring Work
Using Resources
Safety
Communicating

And a few that would definately be affected:

Setting an Example
Integrity
Judgement
Respecting Others
Human Relations
Responsibility
Developing Subordinates

A lot of the rest could go either way, depending on the circumstances of the case. Basically, if I was marking an individual who screwed up, (and hopefully this is a stellar performer, otherwise why the talk of 7's) I wouldn't try to read too deep into the wording to lower marks that may not apply to the situation. I'll let the mast, the not recommended block, the unsat conduct mark and any factors that obviously fit the situation serve their purpose.

Chris

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, I read the standard and apply them to the situation. I could apply them one way to give that stellar performer the benefit of the doubt,.... and another way when holding someone accountable after a Mast.

I just don't understand why I've seen someone giving that liberal reading after a Mast. I've also seen where someone was RFC and the person who relieved them was asking to get them another Command position. I've heard that called "providing a soft landing." That might be the same thing that happened in the cases I've heard about.

With these factors, and again it's just me, but I'd have a hard time justifing a 7.
Stamina
Quality of Work
Monitoring Work
Using Resources
Safety
Communicating
I could read any of those to interact with what ever offense took them to Mast. Again, I wouldn't have to lower them to a 2 or 3. I could see giving someone a 5 or maybe even a 6,......... but a 7 is a really hard sell.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I've searched for the form last night but to no avail. The only form I found was the O-6 and up OER.

Is it possible for someone to print that form(s) to a pdf and upload it? I'm sure they have wordsmithed and other nuances to the catagories and standards since I last viewed them.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Joe...try the link below. Go to the bottom of the page under EER's and the forms should be there.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/psc/adv.asp

[BMC John Phillips III]

..... saw someone go to Mast, and the person's subsequent discipline marks had multiple 7s.

So far I have seen a lot of discussion about maybe one or two 7's but no one's really talking about multiple 7's (which to me would be like more than 4) and in the event of someone being taken to mast, I personally don't think I could do it. Like Joe said, so many of the factors are related and not that I would search for ways to lower marks across the board, but I doubt I would be able to come up with supporting documentation of how a member was so deficient in some factors that they had to be taken to mast and how they far exceed other factors earning a 7.... Just my take....

Ever since I have been doing marks I always provide the member with the benefit of the doubt. It's the same thing when taking someone to mast....if I have booked someone or taken them to mast - they had already been given the benefit of the doubt or they did something so bad - I had absolutely no choice to handle it at a lower level - thus they would not be getting too many 7's from me....and honestly? how many 7 sailors go to mast? I mean, I am just not seeing it, I am hearing it, but I am not seeing it.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Thanks Deane.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, multiple, in the two cases that I immediately think about, is four in one case and six in the other.
The one with six is really interesting, because I couldn't tell you the last time that guy got one seven. In his discipline marks he gets 6 of them?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Stuart,

So his supervisor got "hot" when throwing darts at the EER that day eh ... :D

Looks like that person is set for the next time their available to compete in the SWE ...

[BMCM Deane Smith]

If you take someone to mast and do the subsequent EER's, I still don't see how someone can't get a few 7's if those competencies have nothing to do with the discipline. If you do discipline EER's, the members already not going to be recommended and they lose their good conduct status. Mark them as they deserve...whether it's a 3 or a 7.

It's our responsibility to hold people accountable, but that doesn't mean look for ways to not give them deserving marks. We should give the mark they deserve, regardless of the type of EER we're filling out. We shouldn't kick them when they're down. Correct the negative behavior and reinforce the positive. A 3 and a 7 on the same EER does just that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are several examples of competencies that could be a 7 even though the member has had NJP. These are just the ones that I thought were the easiest to fit into a category that they probably aren't being masted for. I'm sure there are others that could also apply.

A 6 in Quality of Work: Consistently produced work of highest quality; exceeded expectations and/or standards for tasks. Used knowledge and experience to resolve unusual problems/situations while on watch. Needed no guidance other than initial direction to complete new or complex tasks.

A 6 in Monitoring Work: Accurately set priorities for all assigned tasks and consistently completed work ahead of schedule. Consistently kept supervisor informed of progress/problems, results, and new work efforts.

A 6 in Using Resources: Used all personnel and their skills to capacity in a positive working environment. Sought out better ways to accomplish tasks. Developed new methods or approaches. Cost conscious. Exceeded customer expectations

A 6 in Safety: Willingly worked overtime when necessary to get the job done. No loss of productivity or safety during stressful situations or extended work hours.

A 6 in Communicating: Consistently displayed an outstanding ability in verbal expressions. Promoted open communications; put others at ease and drew out their suggestions/comments. Presentations were typically well organized.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Deane, I'm all for giving people what they deserve, I really just don't see alot of people who earn those high marks getting Masted.

where I would have the problems with the ones you chose....

A 6 in Quality of Work: .......exceeded expectations and/or standards for tasks. I think this is one of the marks where it's hard enough to give someone a 7 in the first place. How do you go beyond exceeding someone's expectations? And one of the tasks I expect people to meet is the things that prevent them from going to Mast in the first place.

A 6 in Monitoring Work: Accurately set priorities for all assigned tasks
again with the all assigned tasks. Whatever got them to Mast was probably covered in some instruction they were tasked to adhere to. Consistently kept supervisor informed of ......./problems, If they had kept someone informed of problems couldn't the Mast have been avoided in the first place?

A 6 in Using Resources: a positive working environment........ Exceeded customer expectations Again hard enough to exceed the written standard in normal circumstances, but with my excerpts it would really depend on what they went to Mast for, and who the customer in question is. If I'm the customer, their going to Mast falls far short of my expectations.

A 6 in Safety: Really depending on what the Mast was for. Pretty much anything alcohol related that would lead to a Mast...... and I'd rule out getting that 6, let alone the 7. Also anything that involved gundecking logs.

A 6 in Communicating: Promoted open communications; put others at ease and drew out their suggestions/comments. Another hard sell for me. I can't think of a situation where someone who promoted those open communications and drew out suggestions from others wouldn't have stopped whatever activity it was that got them Masted.

Many of the Marks we have would be practically impossible to actually exceed the written standard for a 6. If you had a person who was actually earning several 7s, wouldn't it be more likely that you would do something other than Mast the person?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Deane, I'm all for giving people what they deserve, I really just don't see alot of people who earn those high marks getting Masted.

OK. All I'm saying is...It's possible (depending on the violation) to get some 7's on discipline marks. You're clearly not open to that possibility.



If you had a person who was actually earning several 7s, wouldn't it be more likely that you would do something other than Mast the person?

The situation dictates what needs to happen. If a mast needs to take place for good order and discipline, then I'm having a mast.

All of this is hypothetical.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I've seen enough people testify on television to realize that anything is possible........ but I have a hard time applying that to real life situations.

I've been proven wrong many times before though.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Hey one of you guys on a cutter please log that, Stu has been wrong a couple of times before. Wow and people said that a Red Sox comeback was impossible too.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bruce, you have to get the log entry right......many times.

[BMC Mark Emerson]

In my opinion the numbers are intertwined and can either support each other or bring the other down. The Unsat and Not reccommended on the Marks is where the person will get hit. The marks multiple from extra 7's to a pocket full of 2's only effects the service wide. The unsat that the member "should recieve" and the not reccommended will slow down the advancement process following the Mast/NJP.

The EER may not be broken but they should be taken in for a tune up. But untill the tune up occurs the users need to drive it better. When I did evals I would mark people 2 seperate times a week or so apart, just to make sure that I didn't have any personnel baisis at the time. I try to read the marks and make sure mark and do it fairly. But they are all subjective.

A second thought on this - The not Reccomended mark should it be used on the EER to shopw that someone has not completed a required task for advancement? Be it Chiefs academy, board, or EPQ?

Mark

[AMTCM John Long]

The Unsat and Not reccommended on the Marks is where the person will get hit. The marks multiple from extra 7's to a pocket full of 2's only effects the service wide. The unsat that the member "should recieve" and the not reccommended will slow down the advancement process following the Mast/NJP.

A second thought on this - The not Reccomended mark should it be used on the EER to shopw that someone has not completed a required task for advancement? Be it Chiefs academy, board, or EPQ?

Mark

Mark,

Past CG history has shown the marks are also used for retention (ie RIF's). This is what the CG used back in 1992ish. Anyone who had an avg factor of 3.4 or 3.5 (if I remember correctly) in any category got whacked when the CG did the back-door RIF.:mad:

IMO, your correct on the NR/R use. However I believe at one time there was some guidence from PSC not to use it for those type items. Even though the member has not completed, say.....EOCT, they should still be recommended. The NR/R blocks use the eval form as the vehicle for the CO to make his/her recommendation. PSC said they did not have another vehicle to use at the time so the NR/R went on the eval form. That has been an item of much discussion in the past.

John

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

John,

My earliest recollection of marks used in conjunction with a RIF was 1982.

I had evaluated a person at 2.5 [old scale of 4.0] and he was RIF'd.

Then the 1992 evaluations telling an average mark of, damm, my memory is going, would be RIF'd. Both of those reminded supervisors that if you want someone to stay, or have the ability to stay, their marks had to be higher.

No one to date, other than ancillary stories, has any proof there is a system wide problem with the evaluation process. The evidence exists in the average SWE marks are not overly high. Granted, the E-7 is evaluated higher than the E-4, but that can be explained that the E-7 has more experience with the "EER game" than the E-4.

[BMC Russell Miller]

John, multiple, in the two cases that I immediately think about, is four in one case and six in the other.
The one with six is really interesting, because I couldn't tell you the last time that guy got one seven. In his discipline marks he gets 6 of them?

I have to back Master Chief on this, If someone is being taken to mast it is the last resort, other than a DWI/or pop postive, mast is the last resort, so if they went to mast then there is other documention that would drop all the marks. The guy could be the best wrench turner in the fleet but his actions that has result in a mast can effect several cat's. To me it looks like someone trying to help him out. When the should have held him accountable.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I agree the evaluation scenario presented is viewed as suspicious ... especially if they weren't awarded multiple sevens in previous evaluations.

I'd be less suspicious if someone who has consistently been awarded multiple sevens, went to mast, and ended up with multiple sevens again. After all, there are 25 individual catagories for PO3 through MCPO.

The statistics doesn't exist for individual catagory evaluations.

There have been complaints of ashore -v- afloat marks, individual evaluators giving high evaluations, and any other germane topic you can imagine. Till someone actually does the comparison, everything is moot.

I've only looked at one rating, but for CPO, the average evaluation mark based on the SWE competition numbers was 5.05 ... and that was within the last four years.

Where are all these "sevens" coming from?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Mark,

A second thought on this - The not Reccomended mark should it be used on the EER to shopw that someone has not completed a required task for advancement? Be it Chiefs academy, board, or EPQ?

I would recommend someone for advancement if I thought they could do what is required of the next higher paygrade regardless of whether or not they have met the requirements to advance. With that being said....... I might not recommend someone who has no interest in meeting those requirements. If I had a Chief that was adament about not attending the CPOACAD,....a BMC that had no interest in appearing before the OINC Board,........ a BM3 who didn't even want their coswain pracs....... if I had someone who didn't want to make themselves eligible for advancement, it would effect my opinion of their ability to perfrom at that level.

[AMTCM John Long]

John,

My earliest recollection of marks used in conjunction with a RIF was 1982.

I had evaluated a person at 2.5 [old scale of 4.0] and he was RIF'd.

Then the 1992 evaluations telling an average mark of, damm, my memory is going, would be RIF'd. Both of those reminded supervisors that if you want someone to stay, or have the ability to stay, their marks had to be higher.

No one to date, other than ancillary stories, has any proof there is a system wide problem with the evaluation process. The evidence exists in the average SWE marks are not overly high. Granted, the E-7 is evaluated higher than the E-4, but that can be explained that the E-7 has more experience with the "EER game" than the E-4.

Joe,

Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember the 82/83 RIF. Of course we had enough folks on the Steadfast getting the boot for other things, it's hard to remember who got the boot for evals and who got the boot for something else. Somethings from 25/26 years ago tend to get a little blurry.:rolleyes:

I'm thinking 3.4 was the trigger for the 92 RIF's. The Military Dimensions of Miltary Bearing and Customs/Courtesies are what tagged many. If the member's avg eval for the dimension was below 3.4 (ie....member got two 3's), he/she was whacked. There was not alot of areas to be averaged out in the military dimension as there is in the other dimensions.

John

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

John,

That 1992 RIF made three a bad mark and added to the evaluation inflation. All the talk up to then was that four is the average Coastie, making a three slightly below average with enough support in the four column to keep them from getting a two.

Truth be told, on any given day, your performing at a 1 to 7 level. Sometimes I wonder if one were to average their daily evaluations over an evaluation period, what would be the final number.

The bastardization of the evaluations started with the 1992 RIF.

As far as removing personal biases and the halo effect from the evaluations, I've had Evaluation Boards ... consisting of every petty officer in every rating assigned one paygrade above the person being evaluated. They doubled as evaluation training for the junior POs. At larger units, it was restricted to POs in the immediate shop.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

I might not recommend someone who has no interest in meeting those requirements. If I had a Chief that was adament about not attending the CPOACAD,....a BMC that had no interest in appearing before the OINC Board,........ a BM3 who didn't even want their coswain pracs.......

I too would be looking at the "NR" on the eval. Nothing personal, but maybe with the NR the member would complete the requirements to advance to the next higher paygrade. Maybe not.

I can't see why there would be too much push back...you have to attend the CPOACAD to advance, you have to attain the OIC qual (BM) to advance, if they flat out don't want to go...they may have already found their calling. IMO, I can't see them being upset about a NR:confused:

Maybe I'm missing something, is there anything that an NR would hold up the /E7/E8/E9 from finishing thier time? The only thing I see getting held up is the folks looking up from the bottom. I know there are some out there that were not required to go, OK, no worries. But for the BM, I believe the requirement for OIC has always been there.

Policy makes it easy for the BM2/3 not wanting thier Coxswain qual. For the BM3...NR, for the BM2 and after all training has been exhausted, reduction in rate and a NR or switch rates.

I was very happy when I sat down at my last unit with all the BM1's and explained my thinking on a BM going before the board. After discussing the NR for flat out just not wanting to sit, all of them attended the OIC college and started preparing for the board. It was something about sitting for the E7 SWE that got them thinking.;)

It was just the fact they were working towards the qual and showing intent to someday get the qual that got them the R.


cs

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

10.B.7.2.a in the Recommended statement says The rating chain should choose this entry regardless of the member’s qualification or eligibility for advancement.

It further states that if all the qualifications have been met, it constitutes a formal recommendation for advancement.

You get the "R" irrespective of completing the qualifications ... as I read the instruction.

I strongly disagree with that concept.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yeah Joe, but the first part of that talks about their ability to perform at the next higher pay grade. If someone can do the job, but is lacking the time or a certain qual..... I'm all for recommending them.

[BMC Mark Emerson]

I agree on the BM side that it is a requirement for advancement. the situation is...the member is in the process of recovering from a major surgery, been a chief for less then 2 years will be transfering out next year and is competing for jobs. The detalers will review the mark summary and see the NR, will he be bumped down the list because of that?

Mark

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Mark...I don't know about being bumped. They should be able to compete for the jobs that they are eligible to get just like anyone else.

I know a BMC that was not recommneded in the 2 periods (one regular, one transfer) right before transfer and he got a 225'...which is what he asked for. He was in a P3 assignment, so that might have helped. But, the NR didn't seem to matter for the general BMC assignments.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And the member should talk to the detailors about his situation. E-mail or call about what happened and what's going on in their life. Don't rely soley on the comments in your e-resume, because those comments might not be read by anyone that matters. That member should make sure the detailors know the situation. Where that NR by itself might have an adverse effect,.... the story that goes with it might level the field.

[BMC Matthew James]

Here's a hypothetical for you...

Should a BMC not be recommended for advancement to E-8 if he goes before the OIC board mutliple times and fails?

The recommendation is supposed to be made irregardless of where the members stands in the qual process, but seriously?

I don't know of anybody in this position but I'm sure there's potential for it to occur.

BMC MDJ

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Matt, I'd say if the Command keeps recommending him for the board, they think he's capable of performing those duties and deserves to be an OinC. If they're recommending him for the board, I could see where they would recommend him for BMCS.
If he has no desire to even compete, I could argue that he shouldn't be given that recommendation....... again, what kind of example is he setting?

I've recommended people to the board, both at the Sector or the district level that failed to get certified. Sometimes people choke. I still say that if those same people faced a different group of board members, the results might have been different. I also say that anyone I've recommended could have successfully held an OinC position. I hold to the idea that anyone who really wants to do the job could. I think the people who get RFC were more than capable of doing the right things....... they choose not to.

Pick one of the RFC that you've heard about. If that member would have told the board how he was going to handle that situation, do you think they would have certified them in the first place? Ask the vast major of them, if they could go back, would they have done things differently.

When we evaluate someone, we're basing it on their performance. I understand how someone could get high marks and screw up the next day. I don't understand why someone marks the person high, who screwed up yesterday.

[BMC Mark Emerson]

To all,

The Not reccommended mark was changed after the member show the marking officail the alcoast and the persman.

On the RFC issue and going back to the board. I know that I choose the wrong choice and the snow ball effect from that and following choices led to my relief. I found my self in a bad situatiuon and made it worse, fear of failure led to bigger failures.

If I go back before the board, I know what I did was wrong and can explain how it was and what I would do differently. And I never would have thought that gotten myself into the situation in the first place. but what will the board do who knows. I don't think that anyone sets out to fail big or small. I never asked for a life ring and when it was thown to me I didn't swim after it.

M

[BMCS Curtis Dewey]

Here's a hypothetical for you...

Should a BMC not be recommended for advancement to E-8 if he goes before the OIC board mutliple times and fails?

The recommendation is supposed to be made irregardless of where the members stands in the qual process, but seriously?

I don't know of anybody in this position but I'm sure there's potential for it to occur.

BMC MDJ

I know a few people, whats multiple? 3 or 8?. I have recommended someone who may fit your bill. At least they are giving it an honest effort.
heck, we'll recommend them for Warrant;)

As far as the 7's for discipline..absolutley, why not? I see way too many people in the rating chain not following the written standard. You read it and determine if the mast events played into that category.
Lets say it is an alcohol related incident. Did that incident effect their quality of work/professional knowledge/monitoring work/using resources/stamina/communicating/evaluations/work life/military bearing/ etc.
any spin doctor could twist it how they want. Good People Make Stupid Mistakes.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Evaluations will never be a perfect system... I still believe what was said when this system was implimented still holds true.. "Read the block"

Wray.... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Curtis, are you marking the member over a period of time since their last evals, or are you marking them for the Mast? I'm not saying that someone who went to Mast during the marking period can't have high marks...... they could have recovered well. I'm talking about the discipline marks you do the day after the Mast. If you mark the person high, ...aren't you looking for a reason to?

[BMCS Curtis Dewey]

i smell what the Rock is cooking. This is good stuff, you made me go back and read 10b for the third time this month. an Unscheduled review for discipline is just that. This is something that is(nt) outlined in 10b. it says when to do it for numerous things, but how to do it???? It tells me exactly how to do it if there is advancement etc. If you are marking someone for one event(which you are) are all the categories in play? Should they(NO)? If i mark an E5 on Oct 31st with extremely high marks in most categories and Nov 5th he ends up at Mast cause of one stupid mistake, should a good portion of those good marks drop 3-4 points....
i believe i see where your coming from
you know, i cant type what i'm thinking..kinda my demise for these boards. give me a shout this week and we'll BS about it.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Unscheduled review for discipline is just that. This is something that is(nt) outlined in 10b. it says when to do it for numerous things, but how to do it????

I think 10.B.5.b. 1., 2., and 3. explain it pretty clearly.

Interesting on how to evaluate those PCS DUINS and TDY.

[ETC Matthew Turner]

You get the "R" irrespective of completing the qualifications ... as I read the instruction.

I strongly disagree with that concept.

Joe,

That's the way I read the instruction as well, but I'm curious why you disagree with the concept. I think this part of the system works fine as it is. In most cases (except EPQ's), the information in DA will prevent a SWE being mailed if the member hasn't met the qualifications for advancement, so the NR would have no affect on advancement anyway.

Let me give you an example or two to illustrate my point. Let's say I have completed all requirements for E-8 except for the E-PME AQE. If things are done your way, then I get an NR on my EER ending 30 Sep. However, the deadline for completion of SWE requirements is 1 Feb of the next year. Suppose I pass the AQE on 8 Jan. If my CO considers me ready to satisfactorily perform the duties of the next higher paygrade, he would have to submit a special EER prior to 1 Feb to change my advancement recommendation.

Or look at it this way: Should a newly advanced E-6 automatically get NR during the entire 2 year TIG requirement for E-7? Again, if the completion of the TIG requirement falls between the EER effective date and the SWE terminal eligibility date, the approving official would need to send another EER to change the recommendation. What benefit is added by needing this additional step?

Matt

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Matt,

You only have a choice of R or NR.

The original forms had "Progressing", where those members actually progressing towards all their PQS' and other OJT grooming would be recognized as such. That progressing could be changed to a R by a message, just as easily as a R can be changed to a NR by message.

The opposite of your scenario is someone who isn't qualified but the approval official wants all R's unless you can clearly articulate why the member isn't ready. The member gets all the necessary i's dotted and t's crossed via gundecking.

Now that last R turns into a final recommendation that will stand unless the command sends a message to withdrawl that recommendation. Then you get hit with gee Captain, I was recommended last week what happened this week?

There is absolutely no guidelines, other than your "gut" feelings at the moment you assign the mark. Maybe the rule should be a NR unless you provide the supporting remarks for an R. And remember, IAW the rules of the game, the R is given without consideration of the PQS' completed. So with absolutely no PQS' completed, you get the R. That includes those sitting for an OIC board.

I still disagree with the automatic R.

You may be wondering why I'm leaning towards the documentation mode for earning a R or NR. If the member being NR has all their PQS' completed and is a member that can file charges of racism or sexism, you best have your ducks in a row.

Gee Chief, you recommended so-and-so who doesn't have their stuff completed but you didn't recommend me? I think it's because I'm ______?