Enlisted Evals

[BMC John Phillips III]

Before I start, I know this thread is likely to get derailed but I don't mind. So long as someone can answer this question.

I just received my transfer marks and I noticed that there is a performance factor missing. Without a paper copy of my last set of marks I can't figure it out. When I go in thru self and try to do a new set of marks the factor is missing. So that leads me to believe that the CG has removed one of the factors. If that is so, I have to wonder, what factor was it and why did they remove it? I haven't seen any msgs or info on the change.

To elaborate, it's the mark between Using Resources and Safety and Occupational Health. If you go in to mark any E7 or as self you can see how they are numbered EPC(something) 1 thru 5, then 7 thru 9. Basically going from 9 total in that category down to 8.

Anyone know the deal?

[BMC John Phillips III]

I think I might have figured it out, I think it's the one that talks about how active you are in the mess. :eek: Things that make you go hmmm.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

It could be a simple oversight on whoever designed the form.

I think one should address this quickly through the Chain of Command. Your servicewide competition evaluation points would be impacted in a way no one, especially you, wants to see.

On the positive side, everyone is in the same boat, so to speak. It's the only 0 you will get on an evaluation.

Of course, if it were a legitimate change, one would expect to see a CN on the subject.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Joe, it's online and there is no zero there just isn't a mark there any more, it goes 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

John, I'm on leave and can't look. But I know that I ran into this back in March or April. It depended on what date you entered into DA. It had something to do with the new evals being entered into the system. Best I can remember I was trying to post date a set and it brought up the old ones. Also I had done the evals on paper so I could take my time. Then when I went to transfer there was a different amount on DA. Don't know if that is the deal with you, but that is what I ran into. I was able to change the date in DA and it brought up the correct set.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

I noticed something different in my marks too. Leadership and Military has stayed the same, but the Professional Qualities and Performance factors have changed.

There used to be 6 factors in Professional Qualities and now there are 8. Judgment (ECPQ7A) and Initiative (ECPQ8A) have been added.

There used to be 9 factors in the Performance section and now there are 8. ECP4C (Organization) has been changed to Monitoring Work (ECP4D) and ECP6C (Monitoring Work) has been deleted, so actually Organization has been removed.

The sum total is now one more performance factor marked, not one less.

(hey this is my 100th post. Do I become a senior member now? When do I become a Master member?)

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

This is just a numbering issue.

If you look at the worksheet you will see the performance factor goes from 1 to 8. If you look on Direct Access you will see it goes from 1 to 9 with 6 missing. Still the same number of marks and nothing is missing.

This was due to the last rewrite of the form, and moving things around (to better align the forms with each other).

It is a Direct Access issue. As long as you have 26 marks (including conduct) you should be good.

Brett

[BMC John Phillips III]

The sum total is now one more performance factor marked, not one less.

(hey this is my 100th post. Do I become a senior member now? When do I become a Master member?)

Master Chief, you are absolutely correct, but my 1 less comment was already considering that everyone knew about the 2 new marks, Judgement and Initiative.

Congrats on your 100th post! Unfortunately I don't think that Master Member is an option otherwise BMCM Slesh would have already reached it! ;)

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

I could not see it either. I could swear there used to be a mark there about participation in the mess, but now I don't see it.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Ian, maybe it's another conspiracy ;)

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

I could not see it either. I could swear there used to be a mark there about participation in the mess, but now I don't see it.

Look under Leadership, Working with others.

Brett

[BMC John Phillips III]

It is a Direct Access issue. As long as you have 26 marks (including conduct) you should be good.

Brett

By that count, last year I have 25 + R this year (transfer marks June) I have 26 + R.


Rank Eff Date--------------Lead ----Prof------Perf--------Mil
BMC 06/15/2006 Transfer ******* ******** ******** _ ** S R
BMC 09/30/2005 _Regular ******* ****** __ ********* ** S R

Again, if you go in (at least for E7) and try to do a set of marks it shows one missing. You can see the two new marks added under Prof, but the missing one in Perf.

note underscores (_) only added so astericks would line up above each other

I believe ETCM is right about which factor was removed. So if we are all keeping track, they added 2 factors then combined 2(taking 1 away) ultimately giving us 1 more than before :D I think this is the formula: B+2+(-2+1)=B+1. Since I am on the subject of math, would anyone believe that *=7 :p

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

JP3

You are correct. What I was trying to say was you have nothing missing from your current marks. There is a numbering problem in Direct Access.

The Marks were changed. Judgment was added, as well as Initiative. Organization was removed, however the criteria was moved into other factors, so you are still being evaluated in that area.

Just so everyone knows, the evals were updated to bring them inline with the COMDTs revised leadership competencies. Some changes were just in verbiage such as replacing “Coaching” with “Mentoring”. In other cases major rewrites and new dimensions were needed. This was not just a revision of the CPO form, all the forms including the OERs were effected. An example is that we now evaluate Petty Officers in Professional Development.

While we were at it, we were able to do a little tweaking to improve the system in other ways (such as adding the Chief’s Mess comment). What we were not allowed to do was reinvent the wheel.

Brett

[BMC John Phillips III]

It just struck me as odd that we didn't hear anything about the change. For the record, I am totally for the Judgement, Initiative and the new comments in Working with Others.

thanks to all for the info!

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

It just struck me as odd that we didn't hear anything about the change. For the record, I am totally for the Judgement, Initiative and the new comments in Working with Others.

thanks to all for the info!

We tried:

ALCOAST 425/05
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/psc/adv/eerforms.htm

[BMC John Phillips III]

Master Chief, that's awesome thanks!

That's one of the things that makes this site so great, what's making it even better is that people like yourself that are connected or actively involved in things like this can get the information out or answer questions like the one I posted. I was aware of the two new factors and the mess participation change. I just wasn't aware of the combining of Organization and Monitoring Work. I still am not sure why I got the extra mark last marking period though. Especially after reading that Alcoast, it seems to me that all the changes should have been affective as of Oct 1, 2005, was there another msg prior to that one that that only mentioned the two new factors?

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Master Chief, that's awesome thanks!

I'm still am not sure why I got the extra mark last marking period though. Especially after reading that Alcoast, it seems to me that all the changes should have been affective as of Oct 1, 2005, was there another msg prior to that one that that only mentioned the two new factors?

When the marks change mid marking period, you should get marked with the criteria that is in effect at the beginning of the marking period. So in your case it looks like they were right to mark you with the old marks.

It's not playing fair to change the rules in the middle of the game so to speak.

Brett

[BMC Trent Spiroff]

This goes off track from the original content (sorry) but is in line with the subject line.

I am looking for a format/file for enlisted evaluations such as the OER template? I’m looking for a format/worksheet that contains the competency information, and gives you room to type in bullets. A combination evaluation worksheet and support form. Does anyone have such a file?

Thank you.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

Brent, give me a call or send me an email to work on Monday to remind me. I think I may have just what you are looking for.

Brett

[ETC Matthew Turner]

I made a word document with blanks for their name, emplid and such at the top. Then under that I listed all the competencies, but without the criteria. They can type as much as they like for each competency. When the marks are due I email them that (some just keep a blank one for themselves and save it as a different file each time they fill it out) and make sure they have a hard copy of the worksheet from PSC's forms site.

I'll email it to you if you like.

With all the descriptions written into the document, wouldn't that make it rather lengthy and harder to pick out their bullets?

Matt