We never seem to talk about the EERs.....

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It may be time to beat that dead horse again.

Nick Wrote......As far as being treated "like this", I have to ask like what? The question was simple, and again if you dont want to respond on here I understand. But how can somebody not be recommended for Advancement but be recommended for appointment to Warrant. As I said before, I dont understand that just like I dont understand how somebody can get a Unsat on their marks but still get recommended.

Nick, I'd like to take a shot at answering that simple question..... Because people aren't using the EER for what they were designed to do. They don't hold people accountable to the written standard. They don't bother reading Chapter 10 of the Personnel Manual. They've added steps in the Marking Chains to the point where people who have never met you and have no idea what you do..... are now marking you on your performance...... based on what? Some people inflate Marks to give someone unfair advantages for advancement opportunities, while others are slammed with no thought to the rammifications involved.
Three things remain constant......
1. People are not properly trained before they are allowed to do Marks.
2. People are not properly trained on their rights, with their Marks.
3. Marks continue to go up year after year and become less of a true representation of the actual performance of the individual.

Nick when we have people who get more 7s in a set of Discipline Marks than they have 3s..... something is wrong. When we have people who get nine 3s in a single set of Marks and are still recommended for advancement..... something is wrong. When we have someone get a set of Marks that in no way justifies recieving a Not Recommended.... something is wrong.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Stu, those are all good reasons. But the question still remains, how can this happen. I threw the question out to get a response but so far you are the only on who did just that. So let me add that although I agree with all your reasons, I believe the number one reason people are AFRAID to not let people advance for fear of being the bad guy or gal.
Most approving officials, with who the final responsibility really lies, fall into that category. I believe its that simple.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I believe the number one reason people are AFRAID to not let people advance for fear of being the bad guy or gal.
Most approving officials, with who the final responsibility really lies, fall into that category. I believe its that simple.

You got it Nick. It all boils down to whether or not people want confrontation. The good guy/gal doesn't have confrontation.

[BMCS R. Scott Pugh]

I agree with you Deane and Nick... No one wants to be the bad guy/gal.

Another trend that bugs me is how some people inflate marks to equal the playing field for out of rate folks. Case in point was a BM1 with about 10 '7's and the rest '6's while assigned to a Marine Safety type job. The guy in question was a decent guy, but (in my opinion) nowhere near that great. I saw the marks he was sitting for an OIC review board, and the general consensus among the board members was "WTF".

Is there a fix - I doubt it. As long as people are involved, emotions will be part of the equation. You will always have friends and foes in your rating chain.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Just stick with afraid ...... and they're playing the odds. It's easier to avoid the confrontation of explaining to your subordinate that you need to hold them accountable to the written standard, and what are the odds of your superiors actually confronting you and checking to see if your doing your job? Also if you give someone marks they have no need to appeal,....... even less chance someone calls you on it.
I'd be curious how many people appeal their marks and they stick. I'd bet they get them changed prior to it going above the Approving Official.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Scott, there has to be a fix.
Here's a couple of thoughts.....
1. Stop putting the emphasis on Marks with advancements.
2. Start calling the Approval Official and asking WTF. Hold the rating Chain Accountable for the Marks they give out. Yeah, we'd still have problems for awhile, but eventually things would get better. We could start small and easy, look at someone's Discipline Marks and ask the Approving Ofiical to justify them.
3. I know this sounds crazy..... but train people on what's expected of them when they Mark someone......

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

I say do away with the final marks multiple as a factor for advancement and you either get a recommended or not. You still mark your folks and assign the numbers just as they are now as a counseling tool but do away with the number in regards to advancement, either there are or aren't recommended and everything else still applies as factors for advancement.

Sure people can say but people will start putting their members in for awards for the points, my thought is that if they do something to deserve an award fine that will maybe keep commands from waiting for an end of tour award.

How many times have you seen an award scrutinized way more than a set of marks??

Todd

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I would like to see someone do some research on the evaluations.

Ten years ago, a LCDR asked on one of the forums that eventually became the CG discussions at military.com this question ... "Do you believe people ashore are marked higher than people afloat?" I'm paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact quote.

Everyone on the thread ... and even on the threads here, have antidotial evidence that the answer is yes. No one has actually studied the statistics.

You know your doing a good job at evaluating if your people are complaining about their evaluations, especially those newcomers who are receiving their first set of evals with you as the supervisor.

The likert scale used in the evaluations had the "ideal" that the average coastie is a four. That's right, a four. Three's are not a bad mark ... contrary to what anyone thinks. Even in the old system when a 4.0 sailor was the absolute best ... there were incidents of supervisors evaluating higher than they should have. One had indicated they did it so their people could compete with the lessor qualified (in their eyes) of their competitors across the pier from them.

Thirty years ago, the MRN courses had a section on evaluations ... complete with the classical biases, good and bad, so the evaluator could be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. What course is available these days?

I can tell you my biggest bias was human nature. It's human nature to remember those things that "create emotion". This is why we remember the bad things more than the good things. To combat my memory, I held evaluation boards where I got input from everyone one grade and above the person being evaluated. This allowed me to see something that created an emotional response from me for what it is ... one event in a 180 day period. Then I had to weigh whether or not that event was worthy of shitting on one of my charges in the advancement game.

The evaluations were designed for consistent performance over the evaluation period. So, someone has a good week, a bad week, and mostly average weeks ... sounds like an average performer to me.

The most fair way, and labor intensive method, would be to evaluate your people daily with you doing the average value for the marking period. There will be some holes in this because what would you assign to someone who didn't do anything in that catagory for the whole marking period? A one or seven isn't appropriate; neither are two or six.

If you want to see how you stack up ... have your charges evaluate you ... without them signing the EER. Your eyes might be open. You could do that in conjunction with training your charges on the evaluation system.


Also have them evaluate themselves after your training session ... give them a couple of days to get their self-evaluation to you ... with them signing that evaluation. It will make interesting reading and you will see the halo effect by some. You could hold one on one's with everyone to do some followup training with they way they marked themselves, pointing out the area's you think they applied a large dose of bias [positive or negative]. Of course, they might enlighten you to how they justified such a mark ... which you will remind them to include in their worksheet when it's time to do their "real" marks. :D

Now, if your opine and their opine are within a point of one another ... is there really a disagreement?

Is this something you can do quickly? Hell no. Are your charges worth it? I'll let the leader in you decide that answer.

I will admit that from the information I've seen [SWE stats], there is an associated increase in marks with an increase in rate. Some ratings have higher evaluations then others ... and therein lies a good reason for a study by grades of the supervisors, marking officials, and approving officials. With the data being available [without name], one could readily see which group marks higher.

Does any of this mean your XPO or 1LT deserves lower marks? Nope. Does your XPO or 1LT deserve lower marks than someone who is in the same rate but not the same position? Who knows.

Some questions can't be answered till the facts are known. Servicewide facts ... not to be confused with the servicewide competitions data.

What would happen if you found an O-6 who evaluates (or approves) higher than some E-7, E-8, or E-9 (OiC)? Do you think for one attosecond that the Commandant will demand training for every supervisor, marking, and approving official? Yes, the training solution needs to start somewhere ... at the supervisor's level.

You, as Chiefs, can start right now by training your charges on the evaluation system. What does each phrase really mean? How does one earn the precepts of that phrase?

Wray could jump in here at any moment to remind us that fives are nothing more than a "glorified four". He's right, but according to the rules of the game, if they meet all the phrases in the four catagory, you need to look at the six catagory to see if there is any consistent performance in the standards listed. As soon as someone gets one of those standards, they qualify for that "glorified four".

The evaluation arguements have been raging since the creation of evaluations.

I can remember when the "new"evaluations came into existance in 1983. I gave a training on them when I was at Loran Station Attu Island. I started with ... we went from a 4.0 to a 7 point system. Then I went through the catagories and explained what each meant and reminded everyone it's the consistent performance that's important.

CIM 1000.6A 10.B.4 gives wide lattitude to the supervisors ... Must clearly communicate goals and acceptable standards of performance to the evaluee before and throughout the marking period.

This could be the cause of the heartburn people have with evaluations ... every unit is individualistic and there is no "common" standard.

Granted some catagories will be common throughout the CG ... and others won't. Most arguements concerning the evaluations don't originate with those "common" standards.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I say do away with the final marks multiple as a factor for advancement and you either get a recommended or not.

Todd,

Right now if one doesn't gardner the recommendation, they don't get to compete. The evaluations have nothing to do with getting that recomendation.

There are four basic parts to the Advancement Competition ... Knowledge [the test], Experience [sea/surf, TIS, TIG], Evaluations, and Awards. This represents the most fair advancement system of all the services. We could argue different elements and each would have their pro's and con's.

I hope every CPO has read the EAST report. In case you haven't, I made the below graphic from the report comparing those four catagories for each grade in the EAST report to the current system.

http://www.tech-service.net/images/east-compare.gif

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I would like to see someone do some research on the evaluations.

Ten years ago, a LCDR asked on one of the forums that eventually became the CG discussions at military.com this question ... "Do you believe people ashore are marked higher than people afloat?" I'm paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact quote.

Everyone on the thread ... and even on the threads here, have antidotial evidence that the answer is yes. No one has actually studied the statistics.

Joe, I saw some stats last week and I'll have to see if I can find them again. If someone else has access to them and can post them first please do. I'm not calling Brett out, I just typed Brett's name because it came to mind, but Brett doesn't need to be the person who puts the carts up, it could be anyone. Anyway, leaving Brett out of this.... I saw some stats last week that showed the opposite to be true. The latest figures had people afloat slightly.... slightly, higher than their ashore peer group. The numbers were broken down by paygrade and by rate. What wasn't available was TIS, TIG, or time at the unit. So in reality some of those people could have been marked higher because they were actually better at their job because they were doing it longer. Some could have been marked lower when they first showed up at the unit and their marks increased before they transferred out. But the numbers did show that marks were increasing across the board over time. we were told the same thing when we discussed the marking system at the CPOACAD. They showed us where marks continued to increase over time and eventually the system is changed. Then the marks start off lower and again increase as time goes on.

[BMCS R. Scott Pugh]

Scott, there has to be a fix.
Here's a couple of thoughts.....
1. Stop putting the emphasis on Marks with advancements.
2. Start calling the Approval Official and asking WTF. Hold the rating Chain Accountable for the Marks they give out. Yeah, we'd still have problems for awhile, but eventually things would get better. We could start small and easy, look at someone's Discipline Marks and ask the Approving Ofiical to justify them.
3. I know this sounds crazy..... but train people on what's expected of them when they Mark someone......

Stu - Some good points, but there will always be (and it stinks) the human factor. The only thing that might stop or hinder that is if someone calls the AO or other members of the rating chain on the marks.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I saw some stats last week that showed the opposite to be true. The latest figures had people afloat slightly.... slightly, higher than their ashore peer group.

Some afloat supervisors might be "compensating" for the perceived "ashore bias".

[HSC Chris Fly]

The EER system would work if used how designed. when Vince Patton redesigned the system, the idea was the standard would change every few years so no would get comfortable with what the "average" mark was. We need to change it up so maybe a "6" is an average mark on a 1-11 system or something like that. This topic was the subject of my CG Memo in the CPO Academy, it went to the MCPO-CG. I never did get a response back....

I totally agree one of the big problems is people are afraid to give people the "Black Spot" by not recommending for advancement. People don't understand it doesn't mean you're a bad PO, just that you're not ready to advance. It's also rediculous when someone gets double digit 7s, no one is THAT good....

Anyway, we need a total rewrite on the EER paremeters as was inteneded years ago. Maybe some of our Gold Badge network can push for this?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

How about this...

SATISFACTORY - P. 7 optional to point out where the individual excels for that factor. This would be good for boards and things where others may need to look at a persons past performance. Let the reader be the one who decides how much emphisis to place on the write up.

UNSATISFACTORY - P. 7 mandatory to explain to the person and the reviewers where the person fell short.

3 UNSAT's = no advancement.

This would change the multiplier for advancement but then it would just add importance to the SWE, experience (dinosoar points), and awards.

[HSC Chris Fly]

That's not a bad idea Jim, take the whole "numerical factor" out of it. BUT, like you said, it would give the dinos a better chance that may otherwise not be deserving.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

That's not a bad idea Jim, take the whole "numerical factor" out of it. BUT, like you said, it would give the dinos a better chance that may otherwise not be deserving.

That would depend on how they distributed the points attributed to the evaluations.

I find it very unlikely that the CG would remove evaluations from the competition, especially since the EAST working group's concensus was placing more importance on evaluations. That thought, higher emphasis on evaluations, is a arguement used by some who fail to advance, discounting their effort juxtaposed against the effort made by those who write number one on the tests.

When they "created" the sea/ surf points, they were taken from somewhere ... awards, TIS, TIG, and evals. The exam portion should always remain the top point getter ... as it equalizes all the other factors for those minimum TIS/TIG types.

Before someone complains about the minimum TIS/TIG types, if you don't like the rules of the game ... write to whoever has the authority to change it. Otherwise, keep your bitching to zero. Remember, everyone who advances has a CO recommendation.

Naturally you can post your letter to CG-??? recommending the change and I won't consider it as bitching, but a fine example of how to complain. :D

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Todd,

Right now if one doesn't gardner the recommendation, they don't get to compete. The evaluations have nothing to do with getting that recomendation.

There are four basic parts to the Advancement Competition ... Knowledge [the test], Experience [sea/surf, TIS, TIG], Evaluations, and Awards. This represents the most fair advancement system of all the services. We could argue different elements and each would have their pro's and con's.

http://www.tech-service.net/images/east-compare.gif

Joe I understand that. But the "number" assigned that we are all talking about being inflated by some is a factor if you are recommemnded.

The recommended and not recommended would stay the same, either you are or you aren't. If your not it doesn't matter, if you are then you are not competing against someone who's command did not properly do thier job, they let the member mark them selves and wallah they were entered into the system without much scrutiny. Instead of two members who do the same job at similar units but have two different sets of evals that have a pretty good spread, now they would just have the other 3 items you mentioned and the human element would be taken out of the mix.

Todd

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

The recommended and not recommended would stay the same, either you are or you aren't. If your not it doesn't matter, if you are then you are not competing against someone who's command did not properly do thier job, they let the member mark them selves and wallah they were entered into the system without much scrutiny.

If someone is marking themselves, that is a leadership problem. Maybe there should be more RFCs due to loss of confidence.

To date, no one has convienced me there is a a problem with the evaluation system ... unless you want to count those imperfect humans.

I'd say let your people do an honest evaluation on themselves and then you sit them down and discuss that evaluation. Perfect opportunity for training on what the evaluation system is and what it isn't. The human element is the one with the most bias. We only "think" we are doing good when you have three seperate people evaluating. The reality is the person being evaluated has more contact than just their rating chain. Sometimes there's OODs, JOODs, Duty Section SPOs.

How many have invited their EPO to join an evaluation board for the members of the crew? When I did that, my EPO questioned me as he stated he couldn't evaluate an ET. I reminded him that the evaluations cover alot more than being an ET ... things that his input would be valuable.

How many have invited PO2s when your evaluating PO3s and below? Isn't PO2 a very good time to initiate training on their leadership responsibilities as they must now attend the LAMS courses to advance to PO1?

Why shun the TEAM CG when during evaluations, their input is most valuable. I don't know about today's CG, but I certainly couldn't be everywhere, every second of the day to observe all my charges.

My personal bias of remembering the negatives was beat back by the other members of the board ... citing far more examples of postitives which reminded me how small that negative was in the 180 day scheme of things.

One note ... when I held an evaluation board, I had a number in mind for the catagory. I never expressed what my number was and it was always very close if not exactly, what the board chose.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, I don't understand what you're saying. You don't see a problem with the EER except that we have the imperfect human element ? I think we're all in agreement with that. On paper Marks are perfect...... then we ask humans to fill them out...... perfection lost. How do we mitigrate the ill affects of humans on the EER?

From some of those numbers that came out. All mark averages have gone up since 2005. You have to weigh in that the marks have changed again since that but....E-5 marks have gone up the least, 0.29, and E-8 has raised the most at 6.29.
The average of total marks ashore and afloat - 2005 - 110.24/111.44, 2006 -123.05/123.22, 2007 - 124.82/122.17
The average by rating MK had the highest increases at 4.89 where MST actually dropped by -2.17. The highest average is YN with 132.13 followed by HS at 130.90........ the lowest is GM at 121.15, followed by FS at 121.43.
Lots of numbers, by themself saying really nothing. We would have to be able to break them down by unit type, time at the unit, TIS, TIG, individual history,....approving official.... the marking chains view on SWE, Warrant program, NJP......

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

If everyone read the blocks, and followed them to the letter the current system would work... problem is, not everyone follows them the same.... some don't read them at all....

There will never be a perfect evaluation system... other than the retirement one, of course.. ;)

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

Before someone complains about the minimum TIS/TIG types, if you don't like the rules of the game ... write to whoever has the authority to change it. Otherwise, keep your bitching to zero. Remember, everyone who advances has a CO recommendation.

Naturally you can post your letter to CG-??? recommending the change and I won't consider it as bitching, but a fine example of how to complain. :D

If you read my post above, you'd see I did that and didn't get a reply...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

When they "created" the sea/ surf points, they were taken from somewhere ... awards, TIS, TIG, and evals. The exam portion should always remain the top point getter ... as it equalizes all the other factors for those minimum TIS/TIG types.

Joe, it might be time to re-examine those sea service points. The last time they revised them to a max of 30. Now someone with lots of sea time can make up for writing a substandard SWE.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Stuart,

Those averages are only the tip of the iceberg. If they really wanted to solve this problem, all it would take is to do those same stats by paygrade of the supervisor.

That would never happen because of the paygrade of those doing the inflating. This doesn't mean that some CPOs would escape, but certainly they should be fewer inflaters in the CPO grades.

I state this not with any hard data to support that thesis. I've used my knowledge of the OER system coupled with the wordsmithing used in that system to justify some evaluations. We've already heard JP III relay his "looks good on paper" BM story.

The fault, as with all faults, lie at the feet of the CO/OiC.

Just looking at the "average" evaluations for those competing in the SWE, I didn't see a significant increase for MKs One would think that if overall there were a six point increase, it would be reflected in the SWE statistics as well.

If your looking at the total points, you must divide them by the number of catagories in that evaluation. Remember, they recently [within the last three years] added another catagory for the senior grades ... so a Six Point increase only means another six was given ... which is the whole point of Wray's post.

Those conditions are normal for inflated evaluations. The problem that people are failing to follow the letter of the standard remains true. Hell, if you added two more criterias, I would expect a 12 point jump for some rates.

Why are they playing fast and loose with the statistics when they know they added another criteria ... causing the increase.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Stuart,

Maybe it's time to revisit the competition points distribution. The sea / surf points were meant to reward people for accepting those positions. The last time I talked to a detailer, she told me no one was beating down her door for those positions [ET rating circa 1993], and I don't know if it's changed over these years.

On the total points, you have had 25 catagories since 2005 being used to make up the aggragate of 124.xx so that average is about 4.xx Not the grade creep everyone is talking about. The ashore being 122.xx, still has the average evaluation about 4.xx, less than the afloat, but not much, 0.08 points. I still think the antidotal evidence is what drives these discussions. What we don't know is the frequency distribution of the evaluations to gain more insight than the "average" will provide. Even if they gave you the standard deviation or spread, it would have been more insight.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Sea / Surf points for advancment is another sticky area as far as I am concerned. Advancement should be about the people that are best qualified for advancment. Not about how long you have been to sea or what quals you have except for those that are REQUIRED by ALL for advancement to the next higher pay grade. We have SDAP and Sea Pay to provide incentive for those positions that are harder to fill. I think the SWE should be less "trivia" and more practical knowledge stuff. Since there is currently no real continuity for evals (although there is a written standard), they (evals) should have little bearing on advancement. If the eval system was done in a way that would provide more consistancy from command to command, then the weight should be greater.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, I don't think that viewing the Approving Official by pay grade would show us anything. There are just too many variables to consider. I think two people of the same pay grade are going to view the same person differently.... based on their own interpretation of the standard, if they apply a standard in the first place.
Just a theory, but just by looking at the numbers I listed, I think MKs get Marked higher because the people Marking them rely so heavily on the MK and many aren't able to do that MKs job. That same Approving Official would be more critical of a BM they mark because they did those same duties. Again just a theory.

I think the overall FS was lower because many of the Marks aren't going to apply to them. Look at all of the independant duty billets for an FS, where they have no subordinates, don't do Presentations, aren't expected to seek additional duties......... You'd have to look at where these Marks are high or low, by paygrade, unit type.... blah, blah, blah.... too many variables.

We could however take anyone who gets a Not Recommended and ask why they didn't get any Mark Lower than a 5. Look at those people with double digit 7s and ask to view the video where they walked on water. Ask why those people with the double digit 7s don't have subordinates with double digit 7s? Look at every set of Discipline Marks. When we have to look back at someone's history.... ask why they constantly have low Marks right up to the last set of Marks before they transfer.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Let me throw something out here for discussion...

The rating chain is in place to keep everyone honest, that obviously doesn't work in all situations as discussed in this thread and other similar threads. We're talking about enlisted evals. What if the CSC/CMC reviewed the EER's? Couldn't they take a quick look at the EER to see if everything looks legit? I'm only talking about a quick review...It seems easy enough to me. If they noticed something that didn't look/smell right, they could have a talk with the AO.

[HSC Chris Fly]

In my memo to the MCPO-CG, I suggested a fix to the problem. My suggestion was that somewhere in the HQ/PSC lever that there be an "alarm" that triggers a mandatory review whenever a set of evals falls ABOVE or BELOW a certain predetermined factor. At that point, a dis-interested party would review the required comments for high or low marks and determine if further investigation is required. That alone may not be the "end all, be all", but it would surely help to know someone is going to be checking your work if it meets a certain parameter.

I've heard the argument that COs/OICs may not like the idea of someone looking over thier shoulders.....my take on that is this: if you're doing your job right, you have nothing to worry about. Obviously, some are not doing thier job right.

Chris

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Deane,

Back in the mid 70s, SUPCEN Brooklyn Chief's Mess reviewed the evaluations of everyone E-6 and below at the unit. As an E-5, I had my leadership mark lowered by that board and I'm sure is was based on a single event. I just got pissed off once with the wrong person and he applied the payback. Oh well, shit happens. I was pissed when I received that evaluation and when I went to appeal to the CPO Mess, I seen the membership composition and told them, nevermind, I know why my evaluation was lowered.

The problem I had was those who didn't observe the individual had a major influence on the evaluations. Did I deserve to have my leadership lowered? Probably.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Stuart,

I feel the supervisors would glean the most information towards evaluation creep, but I advocate doing a complete study as the marking official and the approving official can and do change the supervisors’ marks. This may be a very small portion overall, but it certainly is a factor.

Marking and approving officials can exert subtle influence on the supervisor’s attitude towards marks. I have heard “no one should get greater than a four” in my day. The average Coast Guardsman is a “four”. Well, to tell the truth, the average Coast Guardsman is a 4.9x according to the information I have read in the EER thread at cgchiefs.com. This number is congruent with the information gleaned from the averages over the past few years during the service wide competitions.

We all recognize there are problems inherent with any system designed and interpreted by humans. The Coast Guard evaluation system is no different.

We can look at all the categories in each evaluation sheet and discuss which ones’ are one hundred percent applicable and address those that are not. We could look at those sub-one hundred percent to see the percentage of the population where it is applicable. It may be decided on a methodology similar to the decision process for adding something to the rating PQS’; the category must be applicable to thirty percent of the population.

Some mentioned the vastness of the variables. The only way to address it is to list the variable, the potential problems with the variable, and corrective action to bring that variable back within an acceptable norm.

Some facts gleaned from the service wide competition are:

There is rate creep. I believe as someone becomes more accustomed to the CG evaluation system, his or her marks increase. We could clearly illustrate that by discriminating the frequency distribution by pay grade, time in service and time in grade. I suspect the time in service and time in grade will correlate with higher evaluations.
There are inconsistent evaluations across the ratings. This is a training problem. I realize no two people interpret the written standard the same. I suspect that if you looked strictly at the supervisor level, by pay grade, I believe those in the O pay grades will mark higher than those with E pay grades. This would be inherent because of their understanding of the Officer Evaluation System and its major player status in the Officer’s advancement.


Too many times a single event drives the evaluation. The evaluations are for consistent behavior but some supervisors don’t wander around enough to observe their charges and rely on their brief recollections.

I have been in the situations, where the supervisor was hundreds of miles away, but that was as an OIC with separate OPCON and ADCON. The OPCON did supplemental evaluations and sent them to the ADCON for consideration.

Why was the new category added in 2005 to the Petty Officer and CPO/SCPO/MCPO evaluations? Was that OER fodder or was it a legitimate category applicable to every enlisted petty officer?

Many of those categories’ might not apply across the ratings. This can happen, when someone decides on the categories’ based at one location, visualizing the CG wide picture. It's a prime example of "one size" doesn't fit all.

Back in the mid 80's, during Admiral Yost's time as Commandant, the OER had a category titled "exhibit warlike qualities" or something to that effect. When an isolated duty station was visited by their direct OPCON supervisor, two officers at an isolated duty station took him down to the dump, had a couple of M-16s and a few clips. They opened fire on the rats, shouting typical adrenaline generating phrases, and their "marking supervisor" asked the inevitable question ... WTF are you doing? The reply was they were giving him an example to use when he evaluated them under the "exhibit warlike qualities" category.

My EPO once asked about why such and such pub wasn't available at the unit. It should have been, but it wasn't on our allowance per CN5600. The XPO gave him the job of maintaining the publications and he did what was necessary to get it on the allowance. The pub was one required by his PQS and I agreed it should be included everywhere an MK was assigned. The XPO was my XPO from the previous unit so I knew the XPO did a good job of maintaining the unit allowance. This gave my EPO some more overall experience. Of course with today's E-CG, everyone can maintain their own library ... electronically.

The following questions come to mind:

What is the state of the current evaluation training?
Does E-PME cover evaluations and the associated concepts and theories?
Is it an objective in the LAMS? I suspect it's more of an "if you have to do it, you'll learn it on your own" concept. If my suspicion is correct, then it’s up to the Chief’s to seize the initiative and start training at the first line of supervision, the leading seaman.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Chris,

With everything being database oriented these days, it's easily done to get the statistics on the just about anything.

A trigger could be the total evaluation. A six average would be 150 points. A five would be 125 points. I would tend to think the trigger point should be above a five.

The problem with automatic reviews is once the "trigger points" are known, it will be hell to get a number higher than that trigger point, no matter how much you deserve higher marks. Those 14 per thousand that deserved the six plus average would be excluded from seeing those numbers.

I believe the automatic review should be at a lower level, like the unit. This doesn't alleviate the need for training, because if everyone interpeted the standards the same way, the evaluations would be naturally lowered without the aid of the hammer from above.

Granted, some units don't have enough CPOs to have a Mess. Who is to say that Stuart, his XPO, his EPO, and his 1st LT couldn't form an evaluation review board to review his unit? Stuart has that control well within his reach. I realize that Stuart is the approving official for his crew so he could exclude himself from the board as to not influence their proceedings. I would further guess that very few marks would change ... even by one point.

There is not one approving official or marking official who, when within one point and on the edge, will side with the supevisor. I know this because I've sided with the evaluation boards based on their arguements many times, especially when we differed by a single point.