Enlisted Evaluations Supporting Docs

[BMC Matthew James]

So here goes my first new thread.

Fellow Chiefs:

What sort of supporting documentation do you or your command require at the end a member's marking period? I ask because I am facing a challenge here at my unit evaluating my E-4 through E-6's.

My command requires that each set of marks include a completed Inidivual Developement Plan, Personal Fitness Plan, and typed OER-style bullets. I am an an advocate of the IDP and see the value in the program. I am also good with the fitness plan considering the physical fitness requirements this unit requires. My heartache is with the bullets.

1. First-off, PERSMAN does not require a member to write bullets. That being said, I would always encourage my folks to take the time to document thier accomplishments during the period. Many of my petty officers lack formal writing skills. The command wants the supporting remarks written as ACTION-RESULT statements and pays particular attention to the wording and grammar. This is where it gets sticky, throughout the past year, I have had quite a few sets of marks sent back down to me from upstairs because BM2 Shleprock placed a comma in the wrong place or didn't use the active writing style to justify a 5 in a category.

2. The command has stated that every member must have two to three supporting bullets for every performance factor if they expect to get HIGHER THAN A 3 in that category! Yipes. This means my BM3 has to develop at least two action statements just to get a four in Military Bearing...understanding that "I shine my boots every morning" or "I iron my ODU's daily" are not good enough. A proper bullet would say "I received positive feedback from my Team Leader during the April ODU inspection" or "I made BM3 Jones get a haircut during lunch one day in May".

I am very concerned that we are holding our Petty Officers to a much tougher standard than other commands with regards to marks...troublesome considering we already hold these folks to a very high standard compared to other units I've been at. Throughout my carrer, I always figured that you write bullets to justify a mark higher than four. Your chief is going to have already documented sub-par performance on the form of CG-3307's or counseling sessions. You write bullets to get that six or seven.

To clarify: I support this policy to my troops as required by my command. But, this is adding undue stress and work onto an already overworked group of Coasties. I appreciate that this policy is considered a career-development tool that will prepare petty officers for later command tours or officer tours.

I also feel that the second deck is taking a great deal of the hands of the mess. I deploy with my folks, stand watches with them, train them on underway and in the office. Nobody knows my team better than I do. If I think someone should get a four in Setting an Example the command should support me unless the Section Chief, XO or CO has personal experience with the member that contradicts my judgment.

What do you think? I don't like to air dirty laundry but the majority of our unit mess is extremely frustrated by this policy.

Thanks,

MDJ

[MSTC SJ Natale]

I think about 99.9% of what your thought on the subject are correct.

I dont know when it happened but I have seen enlisted folks at some units puting in as much time on thier marks justifications as Officers do on thier OER's..somewhat RIDICULOUS.

I have no idea of the make-up of your unit or how big your Chiefs mess is, but I would certainly bring up your thoughts and concerns with the Command Chief and possible get this worked out with the command as soon as possible.

There is a GREAT manual we can all look in and see what NEEDS to be done, its called the PERSONNEL MANUAL. The problem seems to be that it does not dictate what CAN be done. This allows Command to "freelance" thier own "policies".

Example: I was told that a near-by command would not give anyone a "RECOMMENDED" for advancement if they had a single 3 in thier marks, that is nowhere in the PERSMAN, but it is an "unwritten policy" of the command. Is it right? I dont know.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Matt,
Thats just nuts. Does your unit have the time it takes to get that done? I think training would be time better spent. Also, our officer corps has issue with completing OERs on time for the same reason, in my opinion. I know how long it takes me to come up with bullets and if they ever look at grammer I would be...........you get the picture.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Matt

I had posted my written command expectations in the closed door thread. They contain a written section on Performance accountability. I had to have these written after someone appealed their marks and it ended up at the Sector level. I understand that it is a pain in the arse to write down bullets. But you know what, every time I get written bullets I can say that the evaluee's marks have gone up in a few categories. Mainly because it is hard to remember what an E3 was doing six months ago. With the advent of "secret scoring" for OIC jobs and all, the EER is becoming more important in every member's career. It is worth the hour to document. Here is what I have written:

Performance Accountability – The Enlisted Employee Evaluation System exists to “capture a valid, reliable assessment of enlisted member’s performance, so the Coast Guard may advance and assign members with a high degree of confidence. The Enlisted Employee review is not only used to document an individuals past performance, but more importantly, to provide a road map for future improvement.” You will be involved in many aspects of the EERS system, both as a supervisor and as an evaluee. I encourage you to be familiar with Chapter 10 of the ref (a). It gives detailed responsibility requirements for both the member and the rating chain. Although not required, I highly encourage you to submit supporting documentation of your performance by the 21st of the month at the end of the marking period. I expect you to encourage junior personnel to do the same and assist them in the process. Your marks stay with you for your career, and are often used in evaluating your performance when determining future job possibilities. Paragraph 10.B.2.b.8 o ref (a) clearly comments on Performance Feedback.

“No specific form or forum is prescribed for performance feedback. Performance feedback – formal or informal – actually occurs whenever an evaluee receives any advice or observation from a rating official on their performance or any other matter on which they may be evaluated. Performance feedback can occur during a counseling session, particularly during a mid-period session, through on-the-spot comments about performance, or at the end of the enlisted employee review period. Each evaluee must be continuously alert for the “signals” received in one of these ways from the rating chain. If the signals are not clear, the evaluee must ask the rating chain for clarification.”

We will make every attempt at conducting a formal mid marking period. These dates are clearly marked on the command calendar. I expect you to understand the above paragraph on performance feedback. I keep a green record book in my office to document those instances where I conduct a counseling session with any member of the crew. This book is kept in plain sight and available for review by any member of the crew. I also expect you to fair and accurately judge the performance of your junior personnel and provide them performance feedback often.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

We use an ESF or enlisted support form in this shop. Though My ESU no longer requires them at their level which is an excellent thing, I still want the guys to provide their bullets to their first Classes and I read them as well. Giving someone a six or seven is easy since that member will have stood out however the ESF is what bumps a four to a five possibly or maybe a five to a six or even a three to a four. As already stated it does become very difficult to remember what every member does over a six month time period (throw in Reserves and god help you if you don't have member input) and the ESF is a great way to jog the memory. It would be a wonderful thing if I could remember everything my folks did every day for six months but heck, I have a spreadsheet with passwords for all the applications we have to use on the WSIII. To many liberty ports I guess.
That being said if a member is getting a lower mark because they aren't Shakespear or reccomendations are being withheld due to a less than stellar ESF then that is an issue you should not let drop. The ESF in my mind is a tool to help the supervisor develop an accurate evaluation as well as a tool for the member to prevent a sub standard set of marks if say their supervisor does not want to put a lot of time into the valuation process. Sounds like someone needs a reality check.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Here is something I came across the other day (hopefully I am not straying too far off-topic with this). It concerns this excerpt from above (which is an excerpt from the 3PM):

"The Enlisted Employee review is not only used to document an individuals past performance, but more importantly, to provide a road map for future improvement.”

What I came across was an individual was given a couple of low marks (3's) and an UNSAT in conduct in hopes that they would get a clear message that change is needed in the future. The UNSAT is what I was most concerned with. During the counseling session the MBR, not the supervisor, brought up that they would not be allowed to take the SWE for 15 months due to the UNSAT. The UNSAT was then changed to SAT.

In this particular intance I do not believe a "road map for future improvement" was being given, BUT some persons issuing marks MAY see it as just that, THE road map being where the utilization of a higher or lower mark is issued for the purpose of adjusting future behavior or performance.

I would like to see this "future performance road map" more clearly defined or understood. I define it as: "past performance that has been documented VIA the marking process that can be utilized to point out areas or concerns that should or could be addressed during the next marking period".

In short, marks are given for performance that was completed during the marking period. These marks can then be used to give advice on what can be done during the next marking period to improve the results received during the last marking period.

After reading what I wrote I may actually be more confused now :confused: I think I got my thoughts out there though.

[BMC John Phillips III]

The command has stated that every member must have two to three supporting bullets for every performance factor if they expect to get HIGHER THAN A 3 in that category! Yipes.
MDJ

If that statement is true, then your command is off their rocker.

Now on the flip side of that, I have my people provide supporting documentation. I made it known up front, marks are not rocket science. You want a six read the six block and do all the things in that block over the course of six months. Then at the end of the marking period, tell me, in writing what you did that meets that criteria. If they don't do remarks, then the get the mark I think they deserve based on my recollection of their performance in that category over the last six months. Again, not rocket science.

Of course the level of writing skills and grammar vary from extremely poor to slightly above average, but that's at lower paygrades and they are not being marked on their mastery of the english language or grammar. The only way you could hold that against them was in "Communications" even then, how heavily I would weight it greatly depends on paygrade and position.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

If that statement is true, then your command is off their rocker.

Now on the flip side of that, I have my people provide supporting documentation. I made it known up front, marks are not rocket science. You want a six read the six block and do all the things in that block over the course of six months. Then at the end of the marking period, tell me, in writing what you did that meets that criteria. If they don't do remarks, then the get the mark I think they deserve based on my recollection of their performance in that category over the last six months. Again, not rocket science.

Of course the level of writing skills and grammar vary from extremely poor to slightly above average, but that's at lower paygrades and they are not being marked on their mastery of the english language or grammar. The only way you could hold that against them was in "Communications" even then, how heavily I would weight it greatly depends on paygrade and position.

Thats easy enough isnt it! That is the basic way I have seen marks done just about everywhere I have been. Sometimes people tend to put a little more or a little less effort than that into them. But what the command is requiring where you are at Matthew is taking it to a WHOLE NEW LEVEL.

As far as the writing is concerned, Im thinking that whats in red above is right on target.

[BMC Matthew James]

JP3- That statement is almost word for word how my branch officer gave it to me.

I appreciate the feedback from the mess. This has been is issue for my mess for over a year now. I read loud and clear the stated goal of my command... to ensure every member who reports here leaves one pay grade higher. We have a robust professional development program in place, including a "Meet the Chief" session with members in our rating every Friday.

Supporting documentation is important, without a doubt. But I see the process of writing OER-style bullets as a bit advanced for junior petty officers who are working hard to simply become qualified and certified in thier primary duties.

I have major heartburn when I have to tell the troops to "punch up" their bullets to justify marks that the command should be trusting me to assign in the first place. If you can't trust your chief to accurately and fairly evaluate his team members, how can you trust that chief to lead that team into harm's way?

The trackline ahead will probably be a little choppy as I attempt to wrestle control of evals away from the wardroom. I think a lot of this conflict is personality-driven and will improve with better communications.

By the way...In order to help my folks develop quality bullets, I created an Enlisted Performance Questionaire that my folks fill out the final month of the evaluation period. It's seventeen pages long, but you can answer all the questions, you can created action statements. If any of you are interested in getting a copy...email my MAIN address and I'll send it along.

Go Buckeyes!

MDJ

[BMC John Phillips III]

Matthew, the only thing I can add to your response is that sometimes people say things that they don't truly mean or aren't planning on actually following through with. A threat of sorts that they don't really plan on carrying out. That type of approach rarely ever works and when you use it, you lose credibility, which if you read my response to BMCS Ellis's "little things" thread you know I am big on. I would venture to say that arrogant leaders that don't think you'd dare go against their word use this type of approach. What happens when none of the third classes at your unit provides the type of support form they are describing? For arguement's sake, lets say they are all stellar performers. Do you really think they would get 3's across the board? I doubt it. Then of course when those same 3rd classes get their marks, they will know they didn't provide good comments, they will know they didn't get all 3's and they will know that the next threat you make you are likely not to follow through on. That's just my take on it...

Don't say something that you're not planning on following through on and certainly don't ever put it in writing.

[BMCS R. Scott Pugh]

Matt - I remember when they were starting the IDP and Fitness Plans every six months, I remember being glad to be departing and heading up north. I don't know what to tell you that has not already been said, except - WOW - where are you and the guys supposed to find the time!

tell DJ I said HI

Scott

[MKC Brandon Andrews]

Matt,
Reading thru this tread it sounds like the advice is out there. The wardroom at my last unit tried to institute something along the same lines. They wanted full written documentation, along the lines of the old page seven entry, for a mark of 5. We, the Mess, had to step in and straighten it out. As far as the other required documentation I'm with you in regards to the IDP's for the first termers and the fitness plans as well. Just my 2 cents.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

So here goes my first new thread.

2. The command has stated that every member must have two to three supporting bullets for every performance factor if they expect to get HIGHER THAN A 3 in that category! Yipes. This means my BM3 has to develop at least two action statements just to get a four in Military Bearing...understanding that "I shine my boots every morning" or "I iron my ODU's daily" are not good enough. A proper bullet would say "I received positive feedback from my Team Leader during the April ODU inspection" or "I made BM3 Jones get a haircut during lunch one day in May".
MDJ
If you get a 3 in any area you can not compete for a xpo, epo or any job for that matter that requires a command endorsement for 2 years. I would tell the member to appeal their marks if this happened. Total B.S.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

The only people that could be reasonably held to the aforementioned standard AND be within the letter of the PERSMAN are E-6 and above. They are required to submit written support for their marks, and the Command can mandate that the REQUIRED documentation be submitted in whatever form they wish.

Aside from that, try putting several hours for "marks support writing" in your plan of the day once a week and see how that pans out.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

That 3 thing is crap if you ask me. Just as you are saying input/bullets are required to get a mark higher than a 4, you would have to justify a 3 or lower. Simply because someone has not given you documentation is not justification for a 3 or lower. Unless you know they are a shitbag.

Now, with that said, some of the previous posts are right on the money. Taking into account paygrade, junior members, hell, everyone, should be attempting to document their work! They have a responsibility to keep track of that stuff just as much as their supervisor should. However, as we all know, we as supervisors cant be there 24/7 to watch what they do.

I have seen commands where, for example, if they work out but not "Regularly" they get a 4 in Health and well being. Ok, fine, I do squat for working out, even though I may be under my weight. So I'm a 4. I plan on starting up a short routine to get help get in better health, and you can bet I will document every bit of it to get a 5. And I see other folks at my unit that work out, running or what ever, but don't document it because they feel that if they are not "Seen" by the marking official they will automatically get a 4. Well, if they don't document it, then of course. And if they do, and they still get a 4, shame on that supervisor for not fighting for that member and sticking to their guns to get a 5.

What are these jr folks going to do if they ever get to CWO, or go to OCS. They will have to sink or swim on their OER bullets then for sure. Well, OCS anyway, since CWO's are 100% promotable :D
Good habits in documentation now will pay off ten fold later. I wish I had better habits about that stuff, might help me get better marks also.

:p

[AMTC Jeff Waite]

Our departmental policy is that a member will get no hight than a 4 across the board without submitting some form of supporting documentation." This could be a hand written piece of paper with supporting bullets. we are not asking for an account of every hour a member has worked, just the note worthy accomplishments. As a shop Chief supervising 20-30 personnel, and now as the Leading Chief for nearly 60 personnel, I cannot remember what each member accomplished 3 months ago. If the member cannot remember, or keep track of, what he (1 person) has accomplished- don't expect his supervisor to do it.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Jeff,

You don't have to remember what everyone did or didn't do three months ago, that is what your LPOs are for.

I have the 3rds and 2nds submit the documentation to the 1st who the does a write up, then submits them to me, I enter my marks in the system and then sit with the DIVO to discuss them. I will make changes if needed and then forward under his number as final.

I always tell my guys that they need to provide documentation, I don't have a set rule that it will be 4s across the board without it, but the marks won't be as high as they might otherwise be with the documentation.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yeah Jeff I'd have to say going with the straight fours as a policy is wrong. I'd let them know that they could either submit the documentation or rely on my memory........ If you can remember that someone was functioning exceptionally, I won't hold it against them if they didn't document themselves enough.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

If the member cannot remember, or keep track of, what he (1 person) has accomplished- don't expect his supervisor to do it.

I would expect his supervisor to observe the person frequently during the evaluation period. If they are not, why are they the supervisor? Let me guess ... they have a real job and can't be bothered to get off their ass and observe their people.

I don't know what the rules of the game are currently ... but ... if they are still the same where you need administrative remarks for 1, 2, or 7 ... then that's the only time you need them.

If you want to hamper your people and make them do ridiculous stuff ... expecially like the very first post stated ... maybe your evaluations need to be handled the same way. If you want more than a 1, justify every thing.

Who controls the person's work day? The supervisor. If they don't ... something is wrong in Kansas Toto.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

My take on the issues is this...if you have multiple persons working for you...you can't be in the same place observing them all at the same time to see how they are progressing...you may miss out on a great solution to a problem one of your people came up with and if they don't bring it to your attention it never registers...Another thing is that if they don't provide supporting documentation...how are they going to challenge their marks if they so choose???Not providing documentation then saying wait...here is all of the stuff I did when they don't agree with the marks...doesn't help at all...

I always tell my people...the key to a successful career is the marks...it is their ticket to advanced programs, advancement, special assignments, etc...so always support the good work you do...if they rely on their supervisors to see everything they do then they're gambling that the supervisor is A) Aware of everything and documents it all B) IS not to busy to take the time to write a good EER C) That the supervisor is adept at writing evaluations D) That their supervisor has been their direct supervisor the entire marking period...I myself provide pages of documentation, enter the data into DA myself, write the bullets and submit it all so the supervisor has less to think about...the more the supervisor has to think the lower the marks usually are...I rarely get my marks changed...that may be a good thing or a bad depending upon how it is viewed...:(

Strat sends...

[AMTC Jeff Waite]

Strat says it much better than I. Yes I see what people are doing (and not doing) but there is no way that I or a supervisor is going to see everything. I do not ask for a 14 page document for support. In fact the best documentation I received last marking period was a hand written half crumbled peice of paper, that really made a difference in the members marks.

[MSTC Shad Hudgins]

I use and enforce the 3 bullet rule per dimension, usually cut some slack on the Work Life/HR dimensions though. I set a deadline and guarantee straight 4s if they're late.

I do it for two reasons. Instill some organization and getting them used to writing this type of stuff for when they're sitting in my chair. It also puts some ownership in their careers.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Straight 4's across the board is the wrong way of doing business. Sorry, it is.

Support forms are optional. Marking against the written standard is not (well shouldn't be).

I always tell my people they write their own marks (not numerically) but through their supporting documentation - so while it's not required by COMDTINST, I require it. I don't want them providing me with numbers, I want specific examples that match up with the number they think they deserve. Again, the only fair way you can hold them accountable for not providing accurate and timely supporting documentation is in the Communications and Evaluations blocks.

As a supervisor, you should know enough about your people (no matter how many - unless you reported yesterday) to mark them accurately in 50-75% of the marks without documentation. I would agree that there are some marks where you haven't seen them do anything exceptional or terrible - then 4 is a safe bet.

[AMTC Jeff Waite]

JP3 I agree with your 50-75% statement it is the remaining % that the member has the opprotunity to affect.

Here's another marks question for conversation.
On average, are E-6s marked considerably higher than your E-4s? If so why? Shouldn't the average marks be relatively the same if marking to the standards for the PAYGRADE? In Responsiblity for example, isn't the expected standard higher for an E-6 than an E-4. If so shouldn't the mark of 4 be the average. I posed this question to a fellow Chief and his response was that the E-6s had more experience. On Average, Doesn't every other E-6 have more experience than the E-4 in the same rate?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

On average, are E-6s marked considerably higher than your E-4s? If so why? Shouldn't the average marks be relatively the same if marking to the standards for the PAYGRADE?

E-6's marks will be higher for one simple reason ... experience ... when compared to E-4s. Experience with the marking system and the myriad of things in the game of evaluations.

One size doesn't fit all ... it never has. This doesn't mean an outstanding E-4 can't get an evaluation higher than an E-6 in a particular area ... because they can, but overall, the E-6 average would be higher than the E-5 average, which would be higher than the E-4 average. This will lead to the "false" accusation that there is marks creep by paygrade.

One thing to look at is the standard deviation of the marks ... It's probably close to the same for every paygrade because we have people moving in and out of every paygrade. Therein will be the key showing you consistency.

One factor affect the evaluations ... the newness of the supervisor, either on station or in a rate high enough to become a first time evaluator. The newness of the person being evaluated also comes into play ... only because you haven't observed them doing enough things to form a good opinion. Which is why there is an "out" for the person being evaluated ... the new unit doesn't have to submit evaluations if they person arrived less than 92 days before the end of the marking period.

[AMTC Jeff Waite]

"E-6's marks will be higher for one simple reason ... experience ... " aren't all E-6's expected to have more experience? Shouldn't we be marking E-6s to a higher standard, not a higher mark?

With that said, I don't disagree with your point, nor many of other points put forth at this sight. My E-6 marks are higher than the E-4 & 5's. I'm only looking for discussion. These disscusions go along way in helping our new Chiefs.

[MSTC Shad Hudgins]

On average, are E-6s marked considerably higher than your E-4s? If so why? Shouldn't the average marks be relatively the same if marking to the standards for the PAYGRADE?

I've seen this go both ways. What do you do when you have E-4 or E-5 performing at the level expected of an E-6. In the same shop, you have an E-6 performing at the level of E-6. Should the E-6s marks be higher?

I think another reason that may cause this disparity is that you work a bit closer to the E-6 than you do your E-4s and E-5s.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

And now, with Sectorization going full steam ahead, I have an aside: What do you do with a person that doesn't have any subordinates?? How do you mark them for purposes of, "and the performance of their subordinates was outstanding"?? If they have none, do you penalize them or give them the benefit of the doubt - or something else? This has been a problem with independent duty folks for a loooooonnnnnng time - as well as Group and MSO personnel.

I've always used qualifications to do it. Consider having a qualified Third Class and getting in a new unqualified First Class... for purposes of marks, the First is a subordinate - at least in MY book. Sure, the First might be the one managing the shop, but they are still learning how to be a qualified person, so for that one section, I use the teaching/mentoring/tutoring environment as a reversal of the superior/subordinate relationship - and then mark accordingly. If the Third is putting forth the effort and doing what they SHOULD as an instructor, they get good marks, no matter how good a student the First is.

And for marks for E-4 to E-6, it is on the same sheet - so I have always sat back and considered each person according to the entries on the marks sheet/Direct Access screen... if they deserve a six, they get a six - no matter if they are a Third or a First... and no matter what everyone else in the shop received. It also didn't matter what they received last time.

I've had cases where all of my people received sixes for a mark... and everyone received fours for another - purely because they deserved them. If you get a seven from me, you deserve it - the same way goes if you receive a one.

I recall my first unit as a Petty Officer, my chief came to me and said, "Your first set of marks will be all fours - and they'll go up from there. It shows growth." Bullpucky!! That attitude is clearly in violation of the written instructions and the intent of the evaluation system... and I have busted my butt to make sure that I didn't do the same thing.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Shad,

I was speaking generically and not specifically. Within each paygrade, there will be an average and a standard deviation. It might be the E-6 ... the average E-6 in your illustration might be getting 5s while the E-5 and E-4 are performing at the top of their group's average ... or 6s.

Then again you can have the E-6 performing at the lower end of their paygrade getting all 4s.

Right now, there has not been any documentation illustrating the average, deviation, or any other statistics concerning the evaluations. A lot of people have expressed feelings but nothing concrete, on a servicewide level. There have been lots of antidotal evidence of marks creep et al.

For my money, the supporting docs were optional. I observed people daily at various times during the day and talked to them ... asked what they were doing ... and inquiry about it. This could have lead to questions concerning what I thought they should know about the topic and I'd quiz them.

Also for my money ... Commandant makes a perfectly good set of rules, so I follow them. I don't expand on them, but will assist younger petty officers in their understanding of those Commandant Instructions ... like what are mandatory phrases and what are advisory phrases.

Right now I feel like everyone is arguing from the point of ignorance ... because of the statistical void.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Jerald,


I've always used qualifications to do it. Consider having a qualified Third Class and getting in a new unqualified First Class... for purposes of marks, the First is a subordinate - at least in MY book. Sure, the First might be the one managing the shop, but they are still learning how to be a qualified person, so for that one section, I use the teaching/mentoring/tutoring environment as a reversal of the superior/subordinate relationship - and then mark accordingly.

Let me see if I understand this comment. A new PO1 to the unit comes in and they are unqualified for marks? Did they not qualify to be a PO1 when the Coast Guard was satisified they had filled the qualifications.

When I got a new PO1 I treated him like a PO1 with all the expectations of one. This was the way it used to be. They came aboard ready to hit the deck running. If I had to take time to "qualify" someone who was already qualify I would have made them a PO2 and then began the training anew.

Nope, I marked them a fully qualified PO1s, the Coast Guard said so too.

[MSTC Shad Hudgins]

Jerald,



Let me see if I understand this comment. A new PO1 to the unit comes in and they are unqualified for marks? Did they not qualify to be a PO1 when the Coast Guard was satisified they had filled the qualifications.

When I got a new PO1 I treated him like a PO1 with all the expectations of one. This was the way it used to be. They came aboard ready to hit the deck running. If I had to take time to "qualify" someone who was already qualify I would have made them a PO2 and then began the training anew.

Nope, I marked them a fully qualified PO1s, the Coast Guard said so too.

Bill,
The reference is job qualifications as in qual codes(PQS). I understand what Jerald saying, you have PO1 arrive, possibly out of rate, and have none of the qualification codes at his/her new job. The PO3 will be training the new PO1 and signing off PQS. Its not a question of a capable PO1, just one that has never done the job before. So in that sense, at least for training purposes, the PO1 is the PO3's subordinate.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

"E-6's marks will be higher for one simple reason ... experience ... " aren't all E-6's expected to have more experience? Shouldn't we be marking E-6s to a higher standard, not a higher mark?

If the Coast Guard wanted you to hold an E-6 to a higher standard, they would have provided a seperate evaluation form. Why do you think Non-Rates and CPO/SCPO/MCPO and up have a different form? We are held to different standards, with the bar set higher for the CPO's [the written standard] than the Petty Officers.

Maybe the CG could take some pointers from the civilian side of the government. Have every billet populated with CJEs and JEs [Critical Job Elements and Job Elements]. Then you can mark people accordingly. That way when you move to a new billet, you have a new set of CJEs and JEs for comparison. I doubt that would happen because of the SWE competition implications. That would start the ball rolling for a host of changes.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Shad,

Thanks, so the person is not "unqualified" as a PO1 as was noted, but in a particular speciality of the job. What if the person had a prior PQS qualification in the specialty? Would they not be in the revamp mode but still accountable for past knowledge?

[MSTC Shad Hudgins]

Shad,

Thanks, so the person is not "unqualified" as a PO1 as was noted, but in a particular speciality of the job. What if the person had a prior PQS qualification in the specialty? Would they not be in the revamp mode but still accountable for past knowledge?

Sure, they'd be allowed some refresher time if they hadn't done the job in awhile.

A newby PO1 to my shop with no prior experience would be getting trained by PO3s and PO2s. I'd still require leadership duties for the PO1 but still mark the PO3s as developing subordinates and directing others for trianing the PO1 at the job.

[ETC John D Zidek]

Shad you hit that right on the head. Definitly use that training to help the junior folks.
Positional Authority rears it's head.

"Z"

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

A newby PO1 to my shop with no prior experience would be getting trained by PO3s and PO2s.

How does someone make PO1 with no experience? What did they do as PO2?

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

I have ran into this as well. I've had a fellow first class report to a 378 with no seatime (this was a while back) and the second's were training the PO1 in not only the technical aspects of the equipment, equipment light off's, power sources, etc but DCPQS as well. It happens.
If I get a PO2 from a ship that has never been to an ESD the PO3 that has been here for a while usually spends a month or two getting them up to speed on our operating porcedures. My PO1 has oversight on this of course but it's the seconds and thirds that spend most of their time on the road.
Not everything that we do is required knowledge to advance. I never did a MILSTRIP on four cutters, as an Instructor at ST school or at CAMSPAC. Then I went to an ESD and after having been in for 17 years guess what I had to learn how to do. ESD's don't have SK's so it was the PO2 that showed this PO1 how to do a MILSTRIP. I read the manual and tried to figure it out but they don't teach that in ST school or ET school so it is basically experience that passes that information down. That is just one example of how things work sometimes. It's not perfect and in a perfect world the senior folks should be the ones teaching the junior folks but we don't live in a perfect world.:rolleyes:

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Shad, thanks for covering for me!

Bill, there are times when we get folks in to MSO's/Sector Prevention Departments that are either senior non-MST's, or are senior MST's that had previous tours at jobs that didn't require quals that we use... like being at the International Ice Patrol. Since we need qualified pollution investigators and facility inspectors, their quals don't path over - and a coxswain at an MSO with no small boats doesn't help either of us...

So, we have qualified junior folks teaching and coordinating training for senior folks that are in turn supervising the junior folks... all in a viscious circle.

In cases like these, I've used the junior folks' activities with the unqualified seniors as if they had "subordinates", and marked accordingly. In many - actually MOST - cases, it's the only way that many MST's can get marked for "supervision" of others.

[MSTC Shad Hudgins]

How does someone make PO1 with no experience? What did they do as PO2?

This more of a rate thing. There are currently "out of rate" billets assigned to Sector Prevention (BM, MK, DC, GM). My guess is from the days when MSOs had boats (some still do). Lets say an MK1 arrives at the unit with no Commercial Maritime regulatory enforcement experience. He will be required to pretty much start at the same place a MST3 arriving from "A" School would with the exception of the leadership role he must assume as the First Class. It can be rough but most do alright once they learn the ropes.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Jerald,
Ah, I thought you were speaking of MSTs only.

What qualification is there for an MST with the Ice patrol. The MST we had did make some of those tiny styroform cups and launched some weather ballons but he mostly stood QM watches and was darn good at it. I did the weather forecast information and I wasn't qualified.

[ETC John D Zidek]

Bill we see this alot in the ET Rating. We have such a large amout of equipment that we are responsible for that it is impossible for everyone to be required to know all of it. Not trying to rate bash, but For example The GM's how many types of fire arms do you have (5 to 6 Small arms, rifles and machine guns and 1 GWS)? Is the job of a GM different on a 378 as compared to a 270? Not for the most part. For an ET it is, not to mention the ESDs, LORSTAs, MSSTs, WAT, and cant forget the TraCens. We are trained to work on the equipment attached to the billet we are going to. On a 378 you have 2 people assigned to most of the major systems (SCCS, WRL-1, Mk-92, CWIS, etc) but we also have another 300+ other pieces of gear like the UQN-4, VHF Radios, OTH Boat equipment, etc. All of that other stuff falls under the OJT umbrella and our Junior experienced folks are teaching the Senior folks that come in from a different platform with different experience. If we are lucky we might get someone that has sailed on a 270 coming to a 378 and that experience will help, but there are differences in equipment and SOP. Not to mention the differences between Pac and Lant area Cutters and instructions. Don't get me started on that tangent.

Do you see how a member can make PO1 and still need to be trained by those junior folks? In 19 years I have probably been to at a minimum of 10 different "C" Schools for systems, but I have worked on more different pieces of equipement that I can count. On the bright side now that we have mandatory rated seatime to make 7 at least you know your Chief has floated at some point since graduating from "A" School.

"Z"

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

John,

I'll preface this with I understand the context of the junior assisting in training the senior in this day of just in time training. That is the price one pays when one establishes the policy of shortening schools, especially "A" school, to get the most bang for the buck out of the first termers. This is not a new problem as every decade someone decides to save money by tinkering with the training.

I remember on my retirement ceremony, 1 Sep 94, D2 was talking about the "pipeline" training concept in conjunction with the "just in time training". ETs have been subject to that type of training for the majority of my career, if not all. I told the Admiral that just in time training will fail if the sending unit doesn't support it fully. How many times have people reported aboard without all the required qualification codes of the billet? TNTC ... too numerous to count. So the minimum [or optimized for some] staffed unit get's to be short handed while their members go off for training. There is a point where everyone is short-handed because every unit is minimumally staffed. People are our best asset is just another catchy phrase when the implementation of such programs allows the receiving unit to get non-qualified people. The receiving units have been in favor of JIT since day one.

Back on topic ... evaluation supporting documents. Ever wonder about the etymology of the phrase "looks good on paper"? I realize that not every supervisor can personally observe everyone everyday, but they need to get out there and observe them in their working enviroment enough to form some opinion. Observe and talk to them. Two essential parts of finding out about people.

I had a fictitious story illustrating the "looks good on paper" concerning Issac Newton and the apple falling from the tree. The last line was "After Issac watched the apple fall further than he depicted on his sketch, he shrugged his shoulders and proclaimed it looked good on paper, then went to ponder the gravity of his error."

On a personal note, my OPCON was in one location, my ADCON in another and the direct representative of the OPCON was in a third location. So, my evaluations consisted of the ADCON as the evaluation food chain with the OPCON and staff providing additiional input for consideration to the ADCON. At least the OPCON's representatives visited once a year to review alot of the station operations. It was nice being 2000 miles from OPCON and 850 miles from ADCON. :)

With that said, even if you only see someone on duty days ... especially those at larger units ... you can provide input to the supervisors concerning your charges evaluations.

[ETC John D Zidek]

Joe,

Sorry I pulled this slightly off topic, but all of that upward training is perfect ammo for the junior people's support forms.

We have recently been told we have to turn in a 6 part folder when we send the marks up the chain. It will contain our support info, members support info, IDP, Fitness Plan and something else I cant remember right now. We havent been given training on how the man with the 3 bars wants it yet, but with E5 marks coming soon the training should be right around the corner.

You know what they say, "What the man with the 3 bars wants, the man with the 3 bars gets." Most of us have argued, that we are suppose to be going to paperless not papermore and that any and all supporting info can be placed in the comments block, but .....refer to the first sentence in this paragraph.

Gotta go, Time to put on the boots.

"Z"

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill we see this alot in the ET Rating. We have such a large amout of equipment that we are responsible for that it is impossible for everyone to be required to know all of it. Not trying to rate bash, but For example The GM's how many types of fire arms do you have (5 to 6 Small arms, rifles and machine guns and 1 GWS)? Is the job of a GM different on a 378 as compared to a 270? Not for the most part.


"Z" I realize that in the current Coast Guard the actual numbers of weapons systems in the Coast Guard has diminished greatly from what it was 30-35 years ago. However, it is not just about systems that makes a person qualified or not. There is, as you noted, many similiarities across the numerous systems. (Also there used to FTs who handled that part but GMs were required to know how to use it as well. I had many questions on the GFCS some on equipment the Coast Guard no longer had.

A person may be unqualified on a piece of equipment but a PO1 with any experience at all should take the responsibility upon himself to learn it. I would ask the junior people to show him the local ropes but the actual training should be that of the CPO. Then there were those independent duty situations where their were no others. Even a 210 only had two ETs. We received an ET1 who had only had A School service and he did a great job (he also went to OCS and retired a commander). When I went to a 210 I was not "qualified" on the 3"/50 but it took me a couple days to figure it out because of past experience. The same in Vietnam. We had weapons there the rest of the Coast Guard did not but that is why books are written.

Are the exceptations lower these days? It seems folks are so wrapped around the PQS principle they forget the purpose of the PQS. The purpose, like PMS, it is minimal knowledge.

Being autodidact is the good thing for any Coast Guardsman.

[ETC John D Zidek]

Thanks Bill you made me look up another one.

Main Entry: au·to·di·dact
Pronunciation: "o-tO-'dI-"dakt, -dI-', -d&-'
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek autodidaktos self-taught, from aut- + didaktos taught, from didaskein to teach
: a self-taught person

[MSTC Shad Hudgins]

A person may be unqualified on a piece of equipment but a PO1 with any experience at all should take the responsibility upon himself to learn it. I would ask the junior people to show him the local ropes but the actual training should be that of the CPO. Then there were those independent duty situations where their were no others. Even a 210 only had two ETs. We received an ET1 who had only had A School service and he did a great job (he also went to OCS and retired a commander). When I went to a 210 I was not "qualified" on the 3"/50 but it took me a couple days to figure it out because of past experience. The same in Vietnam. We had weapons there the rest of the Coast Guard did not but that is why books are written.

Are the exceptations lower these days? It seems folks are so wrapped around the PQS principle they forget the purpose of the PQS. The purpose, like PMS, it is minimal knowledge.

Being autodidact is the good thing for any Coast Guardsman.

Bill,
I'd say quite the opposite. Expectations are higher. If I trust a PO3 to train a PO1 at an unfamiliar job, than expectations my PO3 are pretty damn high. My expectations for incoming PO1 with no experience in the mission he/she is assigned isn't low either. I expect them to pursue their new job with vigor and eventually take over a significant leadership role.

I agree being autodidact is a good thing to a certain degree. However, would we not be setting someone up for failure especially we're expecting them to eventually assume a full leadership role? As you stated yourself, many who are self-taught are taught poorly.

I see the concept at win/win. Giving my PO3s some trainer opportunity while qualifying my new "Chief-to-be" at the job. This works out as long as your PO3s still respects that PO1 is still their superior. This falls back to trust and expectations of your PO3s.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Quick question of supporting doc's.

How far up the rating shain should the supporting documentation go?

Just to the supervisor? To the Marking Official? All the way to the AO?

At my unit it goes up to the Marking Official and that individual decides what goes through, usually everything goes to the AO.

I came across a situation where persons submitting suporting documention believed it was going all the way up the rating chain but in reality it was pulled out prior to getting to the Marking Official.


I have read the 3PM, and there is nothing really there for this particular situation, it seems it left up to unit choice.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

The approving official should see everything that everyone else sees. Maybe some don't want to see it, but everything should go up. Let the AO decide what they want to look at.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'd say that each level in the marking chain should decide whether or not they want to send it up. What if the supervisors reads something he knows is crap? Should it be allowed to be viewed by people who might think that it's true?
I view the marking chain like any other Chain of Command. Let the lowest level decide how high it needs to travel.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

After I do the E-Marks, I hit the "print" function so I get a full print-out of the whole thing. Then, I make a copy of any written stuff that I got from the member or their supervisor, and finally, I hit the submit button to send the evaluation up the chain.

I was recently called in to the Logistics Chief's office about a member's marks, so I grabbed my copy and went in - to see my supervisor, department head and assistant department head in there as well. :confused:

The Chief of Logistics asked point blank, "Why is this guy Not Recommended for advancement?"

I said that all the justification was in the notes area of many of the individual rating areas, as well as in the "NR" notes area, AND in the Supervisor's Comments area.

He looked at his printout and said, "There is nothing here..." :eek:

Long story short, now we have a policy of only editing comments for spelling/grammar/content instead of deleting them outright. The Approving Official (Logistics Chief) deletes anything he thinks is unnecessary.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Maybe I missed something. I was talking about documents that the person being evaluated has submitted with his/her evals. Are we talking about paper supporting documents or on-line supporting documents? If we're talking about paper supporting documents I don't understand why it would be filtered for anyone in the chain.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Yes, I was speaking of paper documentation. I had not even considered comments made by the rating chain within D/A while completing the marks.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Long story short, now we have a policy of only editing comments for spelling/grammar/content instead of deleting them outright.

If all this is done, why not just write it for them? It would save time and effort.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

PO3 Smith does supporting documentation in Word, and paper clips them to a set of paper marks with the hope that they have justified the numbers they have scratched in.

PO1 Jones does the entries in Direct Access - and adds his own supporting comments in the notes section.

I get them, and compare the two - and then spend time editing my First Class's comments as his writing skills are somewhere on the other side of horrid. After I am done, I go back and compare notes with him to make sure he knows why I'm changing a mark (if any), and to go over my commentary edits.

In our two years together, he has gotten MUCH better, but still has a long way to go.

Then, my set is forwarded up to my LT who does the same thing I do (with much less editing!!). The marks are sent to the Asst Department head who just looks them over for legal reasons (1's, 2's and 7's have comments, comments for NR, comments for PO1's and CPO's, etcetera).

Then they go to the Logistics Chief who just records the NR's, the UNSAT's, and then he validates them.

Howzat for a convoluted mess?

And, yes, the paper support goes all the way up.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I guess I don't understand why the supporting documentation wouldn't be forwarded along with everything else to the AO. That doesn't make sense to me. As an AO, I want to see everything.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

How many personnel? The Chief of Logistics has over 200 enlisted members.

There are only so many hours in a day...

Did I mention that there are about 160 enlisted reservists as well? The end-of-year festivities with marks would be completely overwhelming!! Hell, SPRINGTIME marks would be overwhelming!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

They don't have to read everything! But, everything is there if they want to take a look at something.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

They don't have to read everything! But, everything is there if they want to take a look at something.

Thats my thoughts exactly.

This particular issue is not happening at my unit. Someone approached me and asked if it was normal. I told them they should ask this same question up thier COC and if they still were unsure to go to thier Command Chief.

My personal opinion is any and all documentation given should follow the marks through the entire rating chain. If I find something that is totally erroneous I will take it up with the evaluee and find resolution.