PDA

View Full Version : EPR raters told to look at how they give scores



CommunityEditor
09-22-2009, 01:01 AM
Don’t look for immediate or drastic changes to enlisted performance reports.

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James Roy is telling airmen they need to look at themselves — not the forms — if they want to see fewer maximum EPR scores.

“I’ve been told to fix [EPRs} since Day Minus-1,” Roy told a group of mostly senior noncommissioned officers and majors Sept. 16 at the Air Force Association’s Air and Space Conference near Washington. “I don’t think there is anything wrong with the system ... with the form.”

Roy made it clear he supports the current mix of skill and professional knowledge test scores, credit for selected decorations, seniority and EPR scores that factor in an airman’s promotion score.

Ratings on EPRs have been on the rise for much of the past two decades, according to Air Force data.

In 1989, the Air Force cited the need to bring ratings back in line as one reason it was switching from the Airman Performance Report and its nine-point evaluation scale to the five-point EPR. A 5 was supposed to be for only the best airmen.

Today, raters give out 5s routinely. So-called “firewall 5s” add up to 135 points, the maximum toward promotion.

In his speech, Roy called on raters to evaluate their airmen honestly. They shouldn’t expect a new form or directive to change the scores.

“It’s not Chief Roy’s problem,” he said. “It’s our problem.”

Leaders revised the EPR form in 2007 to reflect ability, not readiness for promotion. Now, raters score airmen from 1 for poor to 5 for “truly among the best.” Scores have fallen slightly since the change, Roy said.

A question from the audience illustrated the dilemma of EPR raters.

A major told Roy she doesn’t give a 5 to airmen who scored 80 points or below on the physical fitness test. Though a passing score, 80 points in the major’s estimation showed the airman wasn’t “truly among the best” as a 5 calls for. She asked Roy pointedly if her thinking is right.

Roy was firm that an airman who failed the PT test shouldn’t receive a 5, but noted there isn’t a set rule on how passing PT tests scores should be figured into an EPR rating.

The major and all raters, Roy advised, must look at an airmen’s overall performance.

“You’ve got to make that hard call,” Roy said.

Article: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/09/airforce_afa_roy_092109w/

JTAC_Sean
09-22-2009, 03:29 AM
Sorry, but the "re-vamp" of the ratings is not going to start with my troops.

I'm not screwing them when it comes time to test simply to set some standard that most of the first line supervisors in the Air Force will never strive for.

It needs to be "Go/No Go" like OPRs. Bottom line, that's the only thing that will fix the system.

CrustySMSgt
09-22-2009, 05:18 AM
Sorry, but the "re-vamp" of the ratings is not going to start with my troops.

I'm not screwing them when it comes time to test simply to set some standard that most of the first line supervisors in the Air Force will never strive for.

It needs to be "Go/No Go" like OPRs. Bottom line, that's the only thing that will fix the system.

I'll provide my usual long rambling reply later... but my quick repsonse to that stance is, the only people you acre screwing is A) those who EARN the firewall 5, and B) the peers of your average performer who is going to get promoted when they shouldn't have, and his peers are going to be stuck carrying his/her dead weight. The average performer gets what they deserve... so if they don't cut it, how are you screwing them by documenting their performance level? :confused:

MACHINE666
09-22-2009, 06:09 AM
Few people bust their asses nowadays and truly deserve that 'firewall' 5 - myself included - everything is automated, everything has a fail-safe to where if Airman Snot screws up, it will be caught before any real damage or harm is done.

The military is not built on efficiency so by default anyone who 'improves' it with a new concept is going against the bureaucratic system which it prides itself upon.

I say keep the firewall 5 system going. It's the only way people can hope to get promoted and the Air Force continues to meet its manning requirements. We're 20 years too late trying to fix it now, unless we burn it down to the ground and start over from scratch.

CrustySMSgt
09-22-2009, 07:41 AM
another Crusty sound bite...

When you promote your average troop to be your peer, and he is still average in his new grade, and you're the one stuck doing all the shit he's supposed to be doing, who's the one who got screwed then?

bb stacker
09-22-2009, 01:23 PM
and the standard reply is;

dont make it count for 5yrs and you might get more on board to rate accuratly.

CrustySMSgt
09-22-2009, 01:34 PM
and the standard reply is;

dont make it count for 5yrs and you might get more on board to rate accuratly.

People make it all the time with markdowns in the last 5 years... they just have to work harder.

Those doing the right things will rise to the top, those who are average can still make it if they study, and below average will get what they deserve.

Measure Man
09-22-2009, 01:36 PM
another Crusty sound bite...

When you promote your average troop to be your peer, and he is still average in his new grade, and you're the one stuck doing all the shit he's supposed to be doing, who's the one who got screwed then?

Most raters want to see their people promoted.

this message from Chief Roy is good...but it's going to need a LOT of follow-up...some examples...and it must be repeated over and over and over until it starts to take hold...senior raters, commanders, shirts and chiefs need to start questioning the firewall 5, instead of questioning the markdowns...

Senior raters...need to cease the 'must have firewall 5" policy in awarding decorations and award them based on the quality of the contribution...

In mx...look at production, qa, etc....and have a policy just as strong for duty performance as there is for PT. (i.e. you don't get the highest mark if you've failed a QA eval). Leaders need to give out some more examples....

Chief Roy took a good first step...but simply telling people to "make the tough call" isn't going to solve the problem...they don't see it as a tough call, they WANT their troop promoted! People need to make the "right" call...but we have a generation of first level supervisors..and even higher...that need a definition of what that is. Everyone thinks it starts and ends with PT...

PT is part of the picture...but what about medical, dental, training readiness? How can you be among the best if you aren't even worldwide deployable? Sorry about your sleep apnea...but you shouldn't be getting firewall 5s if you aren't physically able to be deployed....you should be grateful to even have a job in the military. Why not use your SKT and PFE scores like PT scores are used? How can you be among the best if you score 38% on an exam about your job?...or an exam about NCO duties and responsibilities? Let's lay it all on the table...and make it part of the record.

rickencibolo
09-22-2009, 03:02 PM
Just another Chief passing the buck...this problem will remain as long as performance evaluations ratings equate to promotion points.

Officer promotion system has a better concept. Promotion Quotas (DP) granted to Senior Raters to identify who should be seriously considered for promotion.

How about the same, but unit commanders determine by AFSC exactly who in their unit is recommended for promotion by determining just how many of the 135 points (from the EPR points) should be given. This way the top person (or top few) in an AFSC would get the max and then others awarded less than the max. This way the best are give the max and those who are not don't.

But hey, that would mean more time, effort and money spent on enlisted matters; and well, in my 24 years, i witnessed that if it's not aircraft or officer related, the liklihood of improvement or change is small (unless invoked by law).

bb stacker
09-22-2009, 03:23 PM
People make it all the time with markdowns in the last 5 years... they just have to work harder.

Those doing the right things will rise to the top, those who are average can still make it if they study, and below average will get what they deserve.


few comments here;

you were promoted under this infaltion system, probably recieved a few 5's that were inflated. now from the top you want to change the rules to hose those beneath you?

your well aware that eprs are used for more than just waps points. so by giving them a 4 you screw your troop out of awards, decs, special duties, etc...

sorry, until the attitude of "anything below a 5 need not apply" the system isnt going to change.

ringjamesa
09-22-2009, 03:32 PM
You know there are supervisors out there that are exactly the opposite of your examples right? I have had supervisors that won't give someone out of tech school higher than a 3-not fully trained thus not ready for promotion and not on par with others in their AFSC-can really hurt retrainees. I have had supervisors that refused to give firewall 5s because there is always room for improvement. Maybe my supervisors have just sucked more than most.

smokey
09-22-2009, 03:38 PM
I agree. How can we ever improve the system if you are only allowed to do anything with straight 5s on your record? If were saying a 4 is a "great job" and a 5 is "the best" how can we limit people from applying for special duties jobs(except PRP type jobs) who have a 4. I'm sorry. but not every MTL,TI, and postal worker needs to have all 5s.


The system is screwed so bad. I recived a 4 a couple of years ago from a civilian gs-11. She had never supervised a NCO before. I recevied perfect feedbacks, won NCO of the quarter and got into a argumeant with her the week before my EPR was due. FInd out months later i got a 4 because of it. Damn civilians

Frustrated NCO
09-22-2009, 04:21 PM
Just another Chief passing the buck...

Officer promotion system has a better concept.

How about the same, but unit commanders determine by AFSC exactly who in their unit is recommended for promotion by determining just how many of the 135 points (from the EPR points) should be given. This way the top person (or top few) in an AFSC would get the max and then others awarded less than the max. This way the best are give the max and those who are not don't.

Yes, another Chief passing the buck. This is not a front line supervisor problem. This is a SNCO problem. And as the senior most SNCO, it falls directly on the shoulders of our senior enlisted leader. There is a problem with the EPR system and they way it is being implemented. Fix it. That's why you are the CMSAF.

Officer promotions are great or they have been in the last 5 or so years. Allow me to recap... 2Lt > 1Lt 100%, 1Lt > Capt 100%, Capt > Maj 95%, Maj > Lt. Col 73%. Certainly better numbers than their enlisted counterparts.

Quota systems do not work, nor will they ever. If you've given out your highest marks in the first nine months, what happens in month 10, 11, or 12 when your rating comes due?

To expand on the SNCO problem. After 18 years, I've seen front line supervisors write fair and accurate EPRs only to have the front office challenge them on the ratings. I've seen front offices exert pressure to go with the flow and do the easy thing with writing 5's. Have been given the way ahead from our front office that if you send me a 5, it'll fly. Anything other, then there will be complications. This is from SNCO's. So, if you really want to exact change, you need to start with the SNCO's being critical of the EPR's coming across your desk.

And speaking on desks... how about you get out from behind that desk and see what your troops are doing. Get to know them a bit. So when Airman Snuffy's EPR comes across a 5, but you know he's had financial problems (because you've gotten out from behind your desk and have actually talked with Airman Snuffy), you can send that back to the rater challenged. 18 years ago, when I came in, Chief Donley (SSC Senior Enlisted for LG at Gunter) spent the first couple of hours each day walking among his directorates with coffee cup in hand. Now the only time you see the chief is when they leave for lunch, to the restroom, or for the day.

Measure Man
09-22-2009, 05:52 PM
Officer promotions are great or they have been in the last 5 or so years. Allow me to recap... 2Lt > 1Lt 100%, 1Lt > Capt 100%, Capt > Maj 95%, Maj > Lt. Col 73%. Certainly better numbers than their enlisted counterparts.

sounds better...but when you consider that they generally only get one good shot at each rank...sort of makes things a little different.

The system is not the same...If you want to compare...compare the number who make Major with the number who EVENTUALLY make SSgt. Or the number who make Lt Col with the number who eventually make MSgt...and you'll see it's not as easy as it sounds.


Quota systems do not work, nor will they ever. If you've given out your highest marks in the first nine months, what happens in month 10, 11, or 12 when your rating comes due?

Quota systems work....we use them for officers...for SNCO stratifications...for BTZ promotions...for STEP promotions...

One safeguard against your problem above would be to do all the EPRs for a particular rank at the same time...

VFFSSGT
09-22-2009, 06:43 PM
another typical chief...no leadership...

what a cop out approach just to avoid responsibility...we have generations of Amn who have no clue how to rate people much less re-analyze themselves and how they rate.

if i did not read air force times i would not even know this push existed...

CrustySMSgt
09-22-2009, 11:37 PM
Just another Chief passing the buck...this problem will remain as long as performance evaluations ratings equate to promotion points.

Officer promotion system has a better concept. Promotion Quotas (DP) granted to Senior Raters to identify who should be seriously considered for promotion.

How about the same, but unit commanders determine by AFSC exactly who in their unit is recommended for promotion by determining just how many of the 135 points (from the EPR points) should be given. This way the top person (or top few) in an AFSC would get the max and then others awarded less than the max. This way the best are give the max and those who are not don't.

But hey, that would mean more time, effort and money spent on enlisted matters; and well, in my 24 years, i witnessed that if it's not aircraft or officer related, the liklihood of improvement or change is small (unless invoked by law).

The officer promotion system revolves around face time, and clawing your way to the top of the bucket of crabs... and their stratification is as jacked up as ours used to be, where they make up stratification catagories that leave everyone the #1 of something, so it means nothing. And people bitch about having a overall rating last for 5 years on their record... in the "O" world you get one long shot, one real shot, and then another looooooooooooooong shot to get promoted, and you're done. Have one bad year when you're in the window, and you're now a 20 year SSgt. Be careful what you ask for!

And as much as people bitch about their CoC trying to arbitrarily influence ratings, you really want to just give them full, direct control over alloting promotion points?


few comments here;

you were promoted under this infaltion system, probably recieved a few 5's that were inflated. now from the top you want to change the rules to hose those beneath you?

your well aware that eprs are used for more than just waps points. so by giving them a 4 you screw your troop out of awards, decs, special duties, etc...

sorry, until the attitude of "anything below a 5 need not apply" the system isnt going to change.

Call it a cop out if you will... but I can't change the past. I consider myself to be on the high end of the scale when it comes to performance... given my recent promotion and the level of award I just won, I think that is substantiated. But I will also admit that As a young MSgt, I was one of those people that dissapoint me now, staying in my work center and not getting involved, didn't get my CCAF until I had MSgt ON for 2 years... until someone took the time to kick me in the ass and tell me to get my shit together. And it changed the course of my career. I'd have never taken a bet that 6 years from then, I'd be putting on CMSgt.

But I also see those who never did get it being promoted to be my peers, and they are not ready (or capable?) of performing at higher grades and levels of responsibility... so the rest of us are stuck picking up their slack. MSgts & SMSgts who can't lead their way out of a paper bag, so they get stuck doing SSgt & TSgt work, while others have to supervise them and do the tasks they should be doing. So I have no problem cutting off a TSgt at the knees who's been given the tools to succeed, and either can't or doesn't use them to get with the program... I owe that to the TSgts who are doing the right thing, and to the MSgts who'll be stuck carrying the dead weight. All my Airmen start off with a clean slate and are given the guidance to succeed... what they do from there is all on them...

We are slowly righting the course of the ship... with CCAF & PME being mandatory for Sr rater, identifiying those who are committed to doing what is expected of them to move further in their career... but we also need good MSgts, so as long as they are kicking ass on the job, I don't have a problem with people who have no desire to get promoted... but they also know the price that comes with.

Yes, there are challenges... and I agree, markdowns shouldn't automiaticlly exclude you from decs... I am fighting that battle as we speak.. and am pretty confident I'll make my point.



You know there are supervisors out there that are exactly the opposite of your examples right? I have had supervisors that won't give someone out of tech school higher than a 3-not fully trained thus not ready for promotion and not on par with others in their AFSC-can really hurt retrainees. I have had supervisors that refused to give firewall 5s because there is always room for improvement. Maybe my supervisors have just sucked more than most.

I hate those people too... lol
The standard can't be unattainable... that is rediculous. Ratings are based on your actual performance, not a hypothetical standard. If you are a kick-ass 3-level, then that is what you should be rated on. Unfortunately there are people on both sides of the argument who just don't get it.


I agree. How can we ever improve the system if you are only allowed to do anything with straight 5s on your record? If were saying a 4 is a "great job" and a 5 is "the best" how can we limit people from applying for special duties jobs(except PRP type jobs) who have a 4. I'm sorry. but not every MTL,TI, and postal worker needs to have all 5s.

I have 2 people assigned to me in a joint special duty billet who have recent 4s. Not all special duties require them... but I agree, too many try and slip it into the requirement without justification.

imported_LOAL-D
09-22-2009, 11:47 PM
"In his speech, Roy called on raters to evaluate their airmen honestly"

Boy, that's frickin' brilliant!....:rolleyes:

imported_oih82w8
09-23-2009, 01:03 AM
An individual should only eligible for a "firewall 5" (and/or senior rater endorsement) if they are awarded something worthwhile. This could include, but not limited to: Amn/NCO/SNCO of the Month at the (minimum) squadron level, an Outstanding Achievement Decoration, Lew Allen, Pitsenbarger, Levitow, Jaycees, VFW, etc... These types of awards can to tend to be biased, but this is just a start of an idea, to get the average Joe or Jane off their butt and receive some recognition.

imported_oih82w8
09-23-2009, 01:08 AM
If were saying a 4 is a "great job" and a 5 is "the best" how can we limit people from applying for special duties jobs(except PRP type jobs) who have a 4. I'm sorry. but not every MTL,TI, and postal worker needs to have all 5s.

I was selected (involuntarily) for Instructor duty with (then, most recent) 4,4,3,5,5 on the EPR scale. They must have been pretty hard up! :rolleyes:

Yeacheve
09-23-2009, 03:17 AM
Giving a five to someone who doesn't pass the PT test.....are you kidding me? Isn't that the reason we added the fitness block to the EPR, to hold people to that standard, that in the past failed the bike test 15 times or couldn't run a mile and a half in 14 minutes....Where I come from the fitness does not meet standards marking is an automatic referral EPR. Just as any other rating in the far left column.... It may be crazy but I remember when a guy did his job he got a 4, those that were outstanding got a 5!

Buff maintainer

VFFSSGT
09-23-2009, 12:55 PM
An individual should only eligible for a "firewall 5" (and/or senior rater endorsement) if they are awarded something worthwhile. This could include, but not limited to: Amn/NCO/SNCO of the Month at the (minimum) squadron level, an Outstanding Achievement Decoration, Lew Allen, Pitsenbarger, Levitow, Jaycees, VFW, etc... These types of awards can to tend to be biased, but this is just a start of an idea, to get the average Joe or Jane off their butt and receive some recognition.

there is already inflation and corruption in the awards program and you want to implement something that will cause more???

just because someone gets an award does not mean they are the best of the best, just means their supervisor is a good inflation writer. they should become the best writer of the quarter awards.

dwa
09-23-2009, 01:04 PM
Get rid of the numbers on the form; Airmen either meet standards or not! This has worked fine for the commissioned officer corps for years. The Maj quoted in the article as saying she doesn't give 5s to anyone who doesn't score above 80 on the PT test should be counseled and removed from her position of leadership!!

RAYSMILE77
09-23-2009, 02:21 PM
Finally someone said exactly what I was thinking about this Major! Why didn't the CMSAF correct her on the spot...!!!! (I am starting to believe that position is just the ultimate enlisted hookup!) Here is the problem, why 80... not 81, 82, 83, 90, 95, 98, 99, 100... If you can't stand on one leg chew gum and sing the national anthem backswords you get a "4" She expresses exactly what another "part" of the EPR problem is... Her troop could be the best on the planet get a 79 on his/her PT test and get a "4" while SSgt Dummy supervised by someone else gets atleast a 5 with a 75 PT score and the standard work ethic... "MAKE THE HARD CHOICE!!!" The sad part about it is I bet many felt the same way in the audience and just wispered and moved on...





Get rid of the numbers on the form; Airmen either meet standards or not! This has worked fine for the commissioned officer corps for years. The Maj quoted in the article as saying she doesn't give 5s to anyone who doesn't score above 80 on the PT test should be counseled and removed from her position of leadership!!

rickencibolo
09-23-2009, 04:50 PM
The officer promotion system revolves around face time, and clawing your way to the top of the bucket of crabs... and their stratification is as jacked up as ours used to be, where they make up stratification catagories that leave everyone the #1 of something, so it means nothing. And people bitch about having a overall rating last for 5 years on their record... in the "O" world you get one long shot, one real shot, and then another looooooooooooooong shot to get promoted, and you're done. Have one bad year when you're in the window, and you're now a 20 year SSgt. Be careful what you ask for!


The officer promotion concept of identifying (by senior rater) of who is given a higher recommendation for promotion is what I want to point out. I don't want to match officer promotion rules or conditions (or windows), just a different approach to award the 135 in WAPS and thus separate it from EPR ratings. Officer promotion cycles identify with DP's who their senior rater recommends for promotion above the rest. My recommendation doesn't change the WAPS system, just how the 135 is awarded.

Isn't that the whole issue? Giving a numerical EPR rating that affects WAPS?

Surely, EPRs would be reviewed to determine who gets the most points (approved by a unit commander, based on the recommendation of SNCOs in the unit). This way unit commanders has something more significant in the enlisted promotion process than just to recommend (or non-recommend) enlisted members for promotion.

blondemilitarygirl
09-23-2009, 09:35 PM
I do believe they are giving to many 5's. But it's also higher managment telling them that their troop deserves better when they are not here in their sections with these airman. He in the Reserves they only get EPR's every two years after the make SSgt. I'm sorry but they do not have enough time here at the base to get complete fives. Also there is no room for improvement. Come on. But it starts at the top and comes down in the way things happen and the way things are taught. So until they change or retire us lower ranking people can't improve the cycle.

CrustySMSgt
09-24-2009, 04:18 AM
Get rid of the numbers on the form; Airmen either meet standards or not! This has worked fine for the commissioned officer corps for years. The Maj quoted in the article as saying she doesn't give 5s to anyone who doesn't score above 80 on the PT test should be counseled and removed from her position of leadership!!

There are WAY more enlisted than officers... and a Dose Not Meet kills an Os career... so again, we're back to, on one hand complaining a markdown carries weight for 5 years... but your fix is to flag someone as having been identified as not meeting standards... which will stay on their permanant record forever. No way a SMSgt board, much less a CMSgt board is going to promote someone who's got a Does Not Meet anytime in the last 10 years... because, as with the current system, barring NJP or court matial, eveyone is going to get a meets.

But I do agree that Major doesn't get it...


The officer promotion concept of identifying (by senior rater) of who is given a higher recommendation for promotion is what I want to point out. I don't want to match officer promotion rules or conditions (or windows), just a different approach to award the 135 in WAPS and thus separate it from EPR ratings. Officer promotion cycles identify with DP's who their senior rater recommends for promotion above the rest. My recommendation doesn't change the WAPS system, just how the 135 is awarded.

Isn't that the whole issue? Giving a numerical EPR rating that affects WAPS?

Surely, EPRs would be reviewed to determine who gets the most points (approved by a unit commander, based on the recommendation of SNCOs in the unit). This way unit commanders has something more significant in the enlisted promotion process than just to recommend (or non-recommend) enlisted members for promotion.

So let me get this straight, we've got a system in place that doesn't work, so your answer to the problem is to strip the numbers off reports, rendering them nothing more than a memo for record... and then come up with an entirely NEW program to award the points? and THEN you're going to put full control over the number of points an Airman gets in the hands of the CC, who may have hundreds of people in his unit, and never see more than a handful, and let him/her make the call in the blind?

SUpervisors know their people best... their assessment should carry the most weight. Additional raters should know the ratee and the rater, so they are the check/balance in the system to give it a second look. And the CC most often rubber stamps concur and presses. The system works, the execution is broken.

Supervisors need to make honest assessments, add'l raters need to validate it, and while upper management may provide input, they need to stop questioning front line supervisors who rate hontestly and do the right thing for the Air Force, not their image.

If you don't think your Airman earned a 5, mark them down. If someone disagrees, let THEM go through the non-concur process... don't let them influence your rating. Not to say you shouldn't listen... because the ensuing discussion may give you cause to rethink your decision... but whatever you decide, stick to it and give your Airman the rqting they earned based on your feedback.


I do believe they are giving to many 5's. But it's also higher managment telling them that their troop deserves better when they are not here in their sections with these airman. He in the Reserves they only get EPR's every two years after the make SSgt. I'm sorry but they do not have enough time here at the base to get complete fives. Also there is no room for improvement. Come on. But it starts at the top and comes down in the way things happen and the way things are taught. So until they change or retire us lower ranking people can't improve the cycle.


The "no room for improvement" line is BS... you are rating your Airmen on how they perform at their current level... be it a 3-level, getting OJT on a new task, just PCSed in to a new unit... whatever it is... to say, "You can't get a 5 because you're new and won't ahve any room to improve if I give it to you now" is just plain silly. The standard HAS TO BE attainable... or what's the point. Tell me I'm a 4 from the get go, and you're going to get 4 work out of me...

You CAN improve the cycle... YOU are the first line supervisor who's name and rating come first. But that is assuming you know what you're doing up front...

bb stacker
09-24-2009, 12:28 PM
keep the system we have with a few tweeks.

1)ratings only apply to that years promotion points be kinda like holding a kid back in school that wasnt ready for the next grade. why punish someone for 5yrs?

2) you can get decs, special duties, etc with a 4 epr (i think 3 ratings would be pushing it)

3) shorten epr form. yes they already did and imo f'd it up. all that was wrong with the old form was that it was too long. i dont need special categories on the form i just want it shorter.

problems solved!

CrustySMSgt
09-24-2009, 01:47 PM
keep the system we have with a few tweeks. For once we agree.... lol




1)ratings only apply to that years promotion points be kinda like holding a kid back in school that wasnt ready for the next grade. why punish someone for 5yrs?

2) you can get decs, special duties, etc with a 4 epr (i think 3 ratings would be pushing it)

3) shorten epr form. yes they already did and imo f'd it up. all that was wrong with the old form was that it was too long. i dont need special categories on the form i just want it shorter.

problems solved!

1) The current system is weighted, so a markdown carries greater weigh on top, and then loses value each year. One time bad year, put another 5 on time, and you've got to do nothing more than study a little harder than they guy with all 5s. Get another 4, and now you're paying twice... add another, and you're pretty much out of the running until you get on track.

Consistant positive performance is rewarded, negative trends are punished.

2) agreed

3) For TSgt & below, I agree 100%!!! Make it one side; give me 4 lines to put the heavy hitting bullets, and shit can the bake sales, car washes, and other clutter.

bb stacker
09-24-2009, 01:58 PM
For once we agree.... lol




1) The current system is weighted, so a markdown carries greater weigh on top, and then loses value each year. One time bad year, put another 5 on time, and you've got to do nothing more than study a little harder than they guy with all 5s. Get another 4, and now you're paying twice... add another, and you're pretty much out of the running until you get on track.

i know why it was designed that way, but it still isnt working. if your epr's only applied for a year (two tops) i think supervisors would be more apt to rate accurately

Consistant positive performance is rewarded, negative trends are punished.

2) agreed

3) For TSgt & below, I agree 100%!!! Make it one side; give me 4 lines to put the heavy hitting bullets, and shit can the bake sales, car washes, and other clutter.
i was going to suggest a lenght more like a LOE (8 lines?) but i'll go with 4:D


edit;

wanted to add my reasoning for reducing the years epr's follow you. im thinking about the guy that you dont want to screw. the guy thats not ready this year, but with another year under his belt would be ready.

CrustySMSgt
09-24-2009, 04:08 PM
edit;

wanted to add my reasoning for reducing the years epr's follow you. im thinking about the guy that you dont want to screw. the guy thats not ready this year, but with another year under his belt would be ready.

Have you actually done the math?

the system gives "your guy" a chance. Should he have the same chance as the guy who WAS ready last year?

BTW, EPR ratings record performance, not promotion potential, so "not ready" isn't a factor.

bb stacker
09-24-2009, 05:40 PM
the system still punishes him even after he improves though. i give him a 4 epr this cycle and he is still feeling its effects on the next 4 test cycles.

unless he has supervisors that are willing to bounce him around to generate epr's and get the crap one take off sooner.

BIGGUNS85
09-29-2009, 11:26 PM
The EPR system needs to consist of "meets" and "does not meet" regulations.

My troops may not be the shiniest turds in the yard, but I'll be damned if they get screwed 4 years later because I wanted to be honest on the rating system. If I have a problem with my troops, they know right away. . I believe that our core values are represented a helluva lot better by leading my troops without a beuraucratic waste of trees.

Shadowless
09-30-2009, 05:35 PM
I just think it's funny that all those higher ups that are complaining are the ones who got all 5's themselves. Now that they tasted the fruits, they want to turn around and stop the younger force from doing what they did. It's funny how these EPR arguments always seem steered towards 'Airman'. They want to stop the 'Airman' from getting 5's but yet all the techs, MASTERS and above will continue to get their 5's I am sure.

Comm Chief
09-30-2009, 05:38 PM
The criteria we place on decorations inflates the EPR system: decoration denied because Amn Snuffy had a markdown 3 years ago. It takes us too long to forgive a markdown, unlike our sister services. Way too much negative impact (decorations, promotion, special duty) that lasts for years.

How about we fix inflated OPRs and SNCO EPRs first, then worry about our junior NCOs and Amn.

Comm Chief
09-30-2009, 05:49 PM
Get rid of the numbers on the form; Airmen either meet standards or not! This has worked fine for the commissioned officer corps for years. The Maj quoted in the article as saying she doesn't give 5s to anyone who doesn't score above 80 on the PT test should be counseled and removed from her position of leadership!!


I couldn't agree more. Unless you can show me one officer or SNCO that scored 76-79 and was treated the same.

omertalifestyle
09-30-2009, 05:49 PM
The firewall 5 EPR requirement for Decorations are crap. Its like saying hey thanks for the hard work, but you didn't communicate better than everyone else so were denying you your decoration for being here and going through all that you went through. The long hours, the deployments, the time and effort you put into the job to get the mission done doesn't matter because you didn't take three classes during the year.

I understand the whole "decorations are earned and not a right" argument, but many people have earned such decorations for many actions that they have done and sacrificed much to ensure the Squadrons achieved what they did, but because squadron commanders feel that only firewall 5s deserve decorations, 70% of the hard work is noticed, but unrewarded.

I find it hypocritical that a TSgt or MSgt can have a cake job like EOR super and get a AFCM or AFMSM for just making sure people show up everyday, but the guy that is being pulled in 15 different directions every day because he is the 7-lvl and needs to ensure that all ACFT are ready to fly, fight, and win, is pretty much left out in the cold because all EPRs while at that base are not firewall 5s.

Measure Man
09-30-2009, 06:19 PM
I couldn't agree more. Unless you can show me one officer or SNCO that scored 76-79 and was treated the same.

Heard of one base that SNCOs could not get SR endorsement unless they were above 80...

imported_oih82w8
09-30-2009, 07:03 PM
Heard of one base that SNCOs could not get SR endorsement unless they were above 80...

Great, another hurdle to jump over. Especially since there are more and more SNCO's getting the required minimum items for Sr Rater Endorsment (CCAF, Course 12/14, I believe there was one more). :rolleyes:

Shadowless
09-30-2009, 07:30 PM
The criteria we place on decorations inflates the EPR system: decoration denied because Amn Snuffy had a markdown 3 years ago. It takes us too long to forgive a markdown, unlike our sister services. Way too much negative impact (decorations, promotion, special duty) that lasts for years.

How about we fix inflated OPRs and SNCO EPRs first, then worry about our junior NCOs and Amn.

Could not agree more!

Jumper5
09-30-2009, 10:01 PM
I looked at how I give scores.

I have no problem with my process.

Capt Alfredo
10-01-2009, 02:00 AM
How about we fix inflated OPRs and SNCO EPRs first, then worry about our junior NCOs and Amn.

How are OPRs inflated when there is no numerical value assigned? It's go/no-go. By definition, you can't over-inflate that.

imported_oih82w8
10-01-2009, 02:05 AM
How are OPRs inflated when there is no numerical value assigned? It's go/no-go. By definition, you can't over-inflate that.


Hearing about one is hearsay, have you ever seen a "NO-GO" OPR? :confused:

Shadowless
10-01-2009, 03:08 AM
The system is flawed, Chief Roy wants the supervisors to use judgement. But does he realize the supervisors have no idea what a 5 is? What the hell is a 4? What the hell is a 3? It's insane that in todays Air Force there are AFI's, checklists ect but yet there are no guidelines when it comes to EPRS. What a joke.

TOP leadership needs to make guidelines, better yet checklists. If the ratee checks off all the items for a 5 he/she gets a 5, if he'she misses some of those checklist items but gets enough to validate a 4, then they get a 4. Why is this so hard?

Old AFCC Cat
10-01-2009, 04:54 AM
Yes, another Chief passing the buck. This is not a front line supervisor problem. This is a SNCO problem. And as the senior most SNCO, it falls directly on the shoulders of our senior enlisted leader. There is a problem with the EPR system and they way it is being implemented. Fix it. That's why you are the CMSAF.

Officer promotions are great or they have been in the last 5 or so years. Allow me to recap... 2Lt > 1Lt 100%, 1Lt > Capt 100%, Capt > Maj 95%, Maj > Lt. Col 73%. Certainly better numbers than their enlisted counterparts.

Quota systems do not work, nor will they ever. If you've given out your highest marks in the first nine months, what happens in month 10, 11, or 12 when your rating comes due?

To expand on the SNCO problem. After 18 years, I've seen front line supervisors write fair and accurate EPRs only to have the front office challenge them on the ratings. I've seen front offices exert pressure to go with the flow and do the easy thing with writing 5's. Have been given the way ahead from our front office that if you send me a 5, it'll fly. Anything other, then there will be complications. This is from SNCO's. So, if you really want to exact change, you need to start with the SNCO's being critical of the EPR's coming across your desk.

And speaking on desks... how about you get out from behind that desk and see what your troops are doing. Get to know them a bit. So when Airman Snuffy's EPR comes across a 5, but you know he's had financial problems (because you've gotten out from behind your desk and have actually talked with Airman Snuffy), you can send that back to the rater challenged. 18 years ago, when I came in, Chief Donley (SSC Senior Enlisted for LG at Gunter) spent the first couple of hours each day walking among his directorates with coffee cup in hand. Now the only time you see the chief is when they leave for lunch, to the restroom, or for the day.

The "Front Office" part of the equation is a good point. Few years ago, I had an Airman that did a good job, but their personal life was a top spinning out of control. Financial problems, legal issues, etc. When it came time to write the ticket, I rated this Airman very fairly, all things considered. Sent it up, then about a week later the Commander came to see me and said (essentially) "you need to change this to a '5'. Nobody in this unit gets less unless NJP is administered." I said "really, well, that block there says 'supervisor'....see this third block down that says 'Commander', ma'am, that is your block. If you feel this rating is not fair, then that is your chance to mark 'Non-concur' and do the paperwork to back it up, but my rating stays." She (with a dumbfounded look on her face, said "Fine" and stormed out. My rating did not change, and she never 'Non-Concurred'.

The problem with EPRs is that they are multi-faceted. First line supervisors want to see their Airman promoted, so inflation occurs. Up the chain, same thing to an extent and now we have what we have for a system. EPRs tied to promotions, special duties, decorations, etc, of course nobody is going to rate fairly; nobody wants to close any doors or opportunities for their people.

What really cranks my tractor is things I have seen at other bases WRT EPRs, such as, "well, this SNCO is done, never getting promoted again, so we will just close his/her EPR out at the unit level, vice Group or Wing". Or, the hardline some bases take to CCAF and PME WRT SNCO EPRs, such as using statements on the form such as "promote when CCAF/PME is complete", then marking the person as a firewall '5'. If you are saying "Promote Immediately", shouldn't the individuals have the blocks filled to support the rating? I won't even get into the good-old-boy, backroom stratification "policy", if you call it that, that most Wings use (or, apply at their discretion).

Bottom line: If you are going to change the way EPR ratings are given, create a felt need for change, and press. Take it out of the promotion equation for a few years, and see what happens (darn near everyone being promoted is 135 across the board, so why not)?

Old AFCC Cat

Capt Alfredo
10-01-2009, 07:54 AM
Hearing about one is hearsay, have you ever seen a "NO-GO" OPR? :confused:

No, I haven't. But OPRs are not the be-all, end-all of promotion. There a little thing called a PRF that is used for promotions to O-4 and higher. The PRF, by reg, cannot be inflated. The Wing/CC is given a quota, more or less, to give out DPs, which, you could say, is like a "5" EPR. A very small percentage of officers gets a DP.

imported_BRAVO10000
10-01-2009, 08:02 AM
Have you actually done the math?

the system gives "your guy" a chance. Should he have the same chance as the guy who WAS ready last year?

BTW, EPR ratings record performance, not promotion potential, so "not ready" isn't a factor.

I don't disagree, Crusty, but do want to point out that we are generally forced to put a promotion statement that matches the rating.

Bael
10-01-2009, 11:23 AM
I don't think Chief Cop-out is going to leave much of a mark.

The problem with EPR inflation is systemic, hard-wired into the system, and goes far beyond individual raters.

Comm Chief
10-01-2009, 02:02 PM
How are OPRs inflated when there is no numerical value assigned? It's go/no-go. By definition, you can't over-inflate that.

Its comparably inflated by the fact OPRs are go/no-go and EPRs are not. Why two standards?

Additionally, how many “no-gos” have you seen? Is every officer an effective communicator? Not based on the products I have to edit. Nor is every SNCO.

I know its all in the wording/comments/promote statements in OPRs for promotion/pme consideration. Pretty much the same for SNCOs: we have lots of firewalls because its what is said and not said in the senior rater block that matter.

Bottom line, we rate our most junior members harder than anyone else.

Comm Chief
10-01-2009, 02:07 PM
No, I haven't. But OPRs are not the be-all, end-all of promotion. There a little thing called a PRF that is used for promotions to O-4 and higher. The PRF, by reg, cannot be inflated. The Wing/CC is given a quota, more or less, to give out DPs, which, you could say, is like a "5" EPR. A very small percentage of officers gets a DP.

Capt, Is the PRF a permanent part of your record like an OPR or EPR?

CrustySMSgt
10-01-2009, 11:14 PM
the system still punishes him even after he improves though. i give him a 4 epr this cycle and he is still feeling its effects on the next 4 test cycles.

unless he has supervisors that are willing to bounce him around to generate epr's and get the crap one take off sooner.

The effect is weighted, 4 years down the road, the effect in negligable... and if they haven't managed to overcome the makrdown and get promoted in 4-5 years, that probably says something in itself.

your post reeks of the entitlement attitude with the last comment about getting rid of the crap one sooner. If they earned a 4, then it deserves to run its course. Get caught playing the CRO shuffle game in my unit... and the supervisor will be the one paying the price.


I just think it's funny that all those higher ups that are complaining are the ones who got all 5's themselves. Now that they tasted the fruits, they want to turn around and stop the younger force from doing what they did. It's funny how these EPR arguments always seem steered towards 'Airman'. They want to stop the 'Airman' from getting 5's but yet all the techs, MASTERS and above will continue to get their 5's I am sure.

I can only speak for myself, but when I refer to Airmen, I am speaking about ALL enlisted Airmen, not just E1-4.

Here's my take on the "you benefited from it, now you want to screw those who follow" argument.

First, most of us SNCOs were around when the AF had twice as many people... so EPR inflation wasn't a big deal... because there was twice as many people doing a lot less work than we do today. We weren't at war, TDYs were few & far between. There was a big surge during Desert Storm... but once that stabalized, while folks were deploying, it wasn't at the tempo it is today. So it didn't matter so much that there were average Airmen getting pushed ahead before they were ready, because there were 2-3-4 of them to do the job one person does today. With strength in numbers, the impact wasn't as great.

My second, but similar point is, when you are an Amn, SSgt, TSgt, there are a lot more of you, sharing the workload... and again, you compensate for the average performers in your section. So you don't really feel the true effect of having dead weight amongst your peers. But you do feel some of the pain, when you get assigned a job, and the guy your working with doesn't have a clue, so you have to do it all yourself. Or when someone drags their feet getting, or isn't grasping the technical aspects of getting their 7-level, so you're stuck doing all the supervisory work, or working the weekends they should be working. Look around you now and you'll see people who are serving in grades higher than their leadership skills, technical profficiency, or motivation are capable of doing.

And lastly, when you do make MSgt, SMSgt, or CMSgt, the numbers are much smaller. So when you spread the workload across this limited number or resources, everyone has to carry their share of the load. When they aren't capable, that makes the load heavier on those who have to pick up their slack. Not like there is 100 Airmen, 50 SSgts, 30 TSgts to spead out that workload across. So when you get up to this level, it is painfully obvious that the right thing to do it to A) not promote average/below average subordinates to be your peers, because then you'll be stuck carrying their load. and B) you've got to thin the heard for those who will follow you, and make the tough calls early, so those who aren't capable, don't get the chance to rise up and not only cause more work for everyone else, but bringing up the average troops they will influence.

So the short answer as to why it matters to those who are now in the upper levels of enlisted ranks, is because we have seen the changes over the years, and know how important it is to use our resources wisely, giving those doing the right things the opportunity to move forward and help carry the weight of higher responsibility in higher grades.

While I sound like an asshole hardass who is out to screw everyone... I really do try and be very fair, and give people the benefit of the doubt. I will be the first to admit that I wasn't a shit-hot MSgt when I got promoted... and was never challenged to be anything but average. Yes, there is a lot to be said for internal motivation... and I was doing good things in my workcenter... but didn't fully embrace what it means to be a SNCO. But when pushed outside my comfort zone, I realized how much I was missing by just sitting in my cubicle and doing my job. Now, 9 years later, I am a CMSgt... all because I was challenged. So I am a firm beleiver in pushing my Airmen... those who are capable will rise to the challenge... and those who aren't willing to come along will earn the ratings they get.

Capt Alfredo
10-02-2009, 12:49 AM
Its comparably inflated by the fact OPRs are go/no-go and EPRs are not. Why two standards?

I don't know. I think perhaps the EPR should be go/no-go, too. Maybe the enlisted side should do their promotions more like the O's do.



Additionally, how many “no-gos” have you seen? Is every officer an effective communicator? Not based on the products I have to edit. Nor is every SNCO.

I haven't ever seen a no-go. I'm sure they exist, but I haven't seen one.


I know its all in the wording/comments/promote statements in OPRs for promotion/pme consideration. Pretty much the same for SNCOs: we have lots of firewalls because its what is said and not said in the senior rater block that matter.

As you say, it's all in the words. Stratification, as you might guess, is a big deal, too.


Bottom line, we rate our most junior members harder than anyone else.

I agree. God forbid I ever tried to mark down a MSgt.

Capt Alfredo
10-02-2009, 12:51 AM
Capt, Is the PRF a permanent part of your record like an OPR or EPR?

Good question. I think it is, but I'm not sure. I haven't had one written on me yet (next year), and certainly haven't ever written one. From what PME taught, I would guess it is, but I can't say for certain.

Shadowless
10-02-2009, 03:54 AM
The effect is weighted, 4 years down the road, the effect in negligable... and if they haven't managed to overcome the makrdown and get promoted in 4-5 years, that probably says something in itself.

your post reeks of the entitlement attitude with the last comment about getting rid of the crap one sooner. If they earned a 4, then it deserves to run its course. Get caught playing the CRO shuffle game in my unit... and the supervisor will be the one paying the price.



I can only speak for myself, but when I refer to Airmen, I am speaking about ALL enlisted Airmen, not just E1-4.

Here's my take on the "you benefited from it, now you want to screw those who follow" argument.

First, most of us SNCOs were around when the AF had twice as many people... so EPR inflation wasn't a big deal... because there was twice as many people doing a lot less work than we do today. We weren't at war, TDYs were few & far between. There was a big surge during Desert Storm... but once that stabalized, while folks were deploying, it wasn't at the tempo it is today. So it didn't matter so much that there were average Airmen getting pushed ahead before they were ready, because there were 2-3-4 of them to do the job one person does today. With strength in numbers, the impact wasn't as great.

My second, but similar point is, when you are an Amn, SSgt, TSgt, there are a lot more of you, sharing the workload... and again, you compensate for the average performers in your section. So you don't really feel the true effect of having dead weight amongst your peers. But you do feel some of the pain, when you get assigned a job, and the guy your working with doesn't have a clue, so you have to do it all yourself. Or when someone drags their feet getting, or isn't grasping the technical aspects of getting their 7-level, so you're stuck doing all the supervisory work, or working the weekends they should be working. Look around you now and you'll see people who are serving in grades higher than their leadership skills, technical profficiency, or motivation are capable of doing.

And lastly, when you do make MSgt, SMSgt, or CMSgt, the numbers are much smaller. So when you spread the workload across this limited number or resources, everyone has to carry their share of the load. When they aren't capable, that makes the load heavier on those who have to pick up their slack. Not like there is 100 Airmen, 50 SSgts, 30 TSgts to spead out that workload across. So when you get up to this level, it is painfully obvious that the right thing to do it to A) not promote average/below average subordinates to be your peers, because then you'll be stuck carrying their load. and B) you've got to thin the heard for those who will follow you, and make the tough calls early, so those who aren't capable, don't get the chance to rise up and not only cause more work for everyone else, but bringing up the average troops they will influence.

So the short answer as to why it matters to those who are now in the upper levels of enlisted ranks, is because we have seen the changes over the years, and know how important it is to use our resources wisely, giving those doing the right things the opportunity to move forward and help carry the weight of higher responsibility in higher grades.

While I sound like an asshole hardass who is out to screw everyone... I really do try and be very fair, and give people the benefit of the doubt. I will be the first to admit that I wasn't a shit-hot MSgt when I got promoted... and was never challenged to be anything but average. Yes, there is a lot to be said for internal motivation... and I was doing good things in my workcenter... but didn't fully embrace what it means to be a SNCO. But when pushed outside my comfort zone, I realized how much I was missing by just sitting in my cubicle and doing my job. Now, 9 years later, I am a CMSgt... all because I was challenged. So I am a firm beleiver in pushing my Airmen... those who are capable will rise to the challenge... and those who aren't willing to come along will earn the ratings they get.

I guess my point is this and this is on behalf of mostly the Staffs and below. The Air Force is doing more today with less people then ever before. I get told daily that I do the work as a SrA that 3-4 NCOs would be doing just 5 years ago. I am sure alot of Airman and staffs get told this and I see it first hand.

The argument I always throw out there is this, yes there are some dirtbags who don't deserve 5's but why is it so hard to believe that maybe todays Air Force has just grown with so many great people that more are deserving of 5's? Maybe more 5's are being tossed out there because MORE people deserve them?

I look back to just two years ago and how I was so dumb when I told my supervisor not to worry about writing me a 5 because I thought I deserved a 4. I'm not making this up, I literally told him that I don't deserve a 5, even though I had over 60 college credits, great work bullets, never late, perfect uniform ect I didn't volunteer at all. I am selfish with my free time and days off. I told him that, he said that he could probebly still put a 5 out anyways, but I said no, a 4 is fine.

Looking back on that, I should have took the 5. But my point is, so many people want to say not everyone is deserving of a 5, I like to say maybe more then ever before more people are deserving of a 5!

CrustySMSgt
10-02-2009, 04:36 AM
The argument I always throw out there is this, yes there are some dirtbags who don't deserve 5's but why is it so hard to believe that maybe todays Air Force has just grown with so many great people that more are deserving of 5's? Maybe more 5's are being tossed out there because MORE people deserve them?
I like to say maybe more then ever before more people are deserving of a 5!

I'd like... no LOVE to say the same thing... but I took off my rose colored glasses long ago. Having reveiwed hundreds of EPRs and award packages, and compared what was on paper to what I knew to be reality, I can assure you, those who derserve 5s stand out, and those who don't do as well.

Here's how I like to break this down to SSgts who are new supervisors. I will admit my example is a bit dated, as there aren't many (any?) AFSCs currently constrained by CJRs right now... but it still makes the point. Say you rate 2 SrA, Snuffy and Skippy. Snuffy is average on a good day... comes to work on time most days, does what you tell him to do; nothing more, nothing less. Skippy is a go-getter, always trying to improve things in the work center, has initiative, and is an informal leader of the Airmen in the shop. Skippy is also holding an elected office in the base Jr Enlisted org on base, and is obviously someone who is going to go far in their career. Snuffy came in one day before Skippy, and in turn, put on Sra 1 day before Skippy. When EPR writing time comes around, you don't want to hurt Snuffy's career (or feelings) so you break out your firewall 5 rubber stamp, and push the EPR forward (or for arguments sake, let even say you though you were doing the right thing and threw a couple markdowns on the front, with an overall 5). And of course it was easy for you to write Skippy's 5; that was a no-brainer!

So... when it comes time for the impartial Air Force to decide who gets to stay in the AFSC (and if not picked up for another AFSC) and who is forced to separate, the first cut if overall EPR rating. Those who aren't a 5 are the first cut (no one even sees the front-side markdowns. all they see is the overall rating on the EPR). So Snuffy & Skippy make the first cut. For dramatic effect, let's say they are the last 2 competing for one remaining CJR... and guess what, Snuffy has 1 more day TIG/TIS than Skippy, so guess who gets the CJR and who gets a pink slip? It isn't just a story... while dramatic, this is the reality that happened when we were tying to "force shape." And then people raised holy hell when their outstanding Airmen were being sent out the gate... when the reality is, they lost their greatA irmen, because the average ones were competing at the same level. Make the tough calls when they need to be made, or you may end up with someone else making an uninformed decision based on what you put on paper, not knowing the real deal. THis is just another reason why this is such an important topic to me.

imported_BRAVO10000
10-02-2009, 08:16 PM
I don't know. I think perhaps the EPR should be go/no-go, too. Maybe the enlisted side should do their promotions more like the O's do.


I thought I read that the promotion rate to Major last year was like 96.4% of eligibles? If that's true, I am not sure that there is even a point in DOING OPRs.

Capt Alfredo
10-02-2009, 11:17 PM
I thought I read that the promotion rate to Major last year was like 96.4% of eligibles? If that's true, I am not sure that there is even a point in DOING OPRs.

Think of it like making staff. It doesn't start getting hard to get promoted until a little later. The OPRs you get as a Capt will make a difference when you're going up for Lt Col and above.

bb stacker
10-03-2009, 12:40 PM
The effect is weighted, 4 years down the road, the effect in negligable... and if they haven't managed to overcome the makrdown and get promoted in 4-5 years, that probably says something in itself.

your post reeks of the entitlement attitude with the last comment about getting rid of the crap one sooner. If they earned a 4, then it deserves to run its course. Get caught playing the CRO shuffle game in my unit... and the supervisor will be the one paying the price.


catch me if you can. im not going to let one of my guys get screwed because they aren't part of the good ol boys club.

imported_bluejacket
10-03-2009, 12:52 PM
You guys who want to change the world will just keeping getting more headaches than if you learn to use the system to your advantage. The EPR system is already a go/no-go system. Get 5=go; get 4=no-go so stop with that dumbass argument. A small part of the problem with stupid people getting promoted is not the raters' fault. It is the fear put into the raters' from the clowns in the head shed who ask for justification for any markdown. My asnwer: piss off. 1) you are not writing this EPR so you have no say; 2)as the commander, have some balls and fill out an AF 77; or 3)piss off. The major part is that the enlisted corps sat by or asked for higher promotion rates in the late 1990s to help retention rates. Big AF couldn't give everyone a bonus so they gave almost everyone a promotion. Look at the promotion rates and say it's not true. Look at the number of A1Cs coming out of technical school and say it's not true.

CrustySMSgt
10-03-2009, 11:40 PM
catch me if you can. im not going to let one of my guys get screwed because they aren't part of the good ol boys club.

Do what you gotta do... That attitude promoted the SNCOs you see now who can't handle the responsibility; just remember that when you're in a leadership position, stuck carrying the dead weight of your incompotent peers, and leading the Airmen you upper-level worthless NCOs can't handle.

takthekak
10-04-2009, 01:57 AM
I guar-am-dam-tee-ya that the EPRs will be screwed for years to come.
The notion that it will fix itself when the SNCO leadership, me being one of them,
realize the error of our ways, is laughable. I think what is being missed is
that what we realize is that the the system is screwed and we will not
screw our troops becuase of it. I will give as many firewall 5's as humanly
possible, while in a system where 99% of the people get 5's.
Whoever keeps saying WAPS is a promotion system based on performance,
where the best and most skilled are promoted, is smoking crack.
The people who make it that I see mostly are a) the fast burner who has no
clue or experience or b) the old timer who finally needed a 30 on the SKT or PFE
and finally after 7 times testing, got a 37 and now their a MSgt.

takthekak
10-04-2009, 02:07 AM
[QUOTE=CrustySMSgt;285697]The effect is weighted, 4 years down the road, the effect in negligable... and if they haven't managed to overcome the makrdown and get promoted in 4-5 years, that probably says something in itself.

your post reeks of the entitlement attitude with the last comment about getting rid of the crap one sooner. If they earned a 4, then it deserves to run its course. Get caught playing the CRO shuffle game in my unit... and the supervisor will be the one paying the price.

What's wrong/illegal about a CRO shuffle? Show me where it says that's illegal. I think it's a great game and I will play it when needed. I guess when someone has a crap supervisor who writes a crap EPR, they should be made to suffer for up to 5 years, I think not. I remember while ago writing a dec for a guy and the Group CC has everyone highlight the info from the EPR for the dec, well his last rater was crap andleft off very big projects and they would not let me use the info becuase it wasn't on his EPR. I just reviewed an EPR where a SSgt rating on a male SrA referred to him as a her, I mean come on. I also have a TSgt who is just now learning the EPR ropes. The experience in the enlisted rankes from E-1 to E-6 is dropping rapidly.

CrustySMSgt
10-04-2009, 02:13 AM
What's wrong/illegal about a CRO shuffle? Show me where it says that's illegal. I think it's a great game and I will play it when needed. I guess when someone has a crap supervisor who writes a crap EPR, they should be made to suffer for up to 5 years, I think not. I remember while ago writing a dec for a guy and the Group CC has everyone highlight the info from the EPR for the dec, well his last rater was crap andleft off very big projects and they would not let me use the info becuase it wasn't on his EPR. I just reviewed an EPR where a SSgt rating on a male SrA referred to him as a her, I mean come on. I also have a TSgt who is just now learning the EPR ropes. The experience in the enlisted rankes from E-1 to E-6 is dropping rapidly.

There is a difference between (essentially) firing a supervisor (removing supervisory responsibility) and moving someone to a different supervisor and CROing someone for the sole intent of putting another report on top.

If the rater's rater (usually immediate supervisor of rater) was doing their job, these mistakes would not occur! People bitch about the ass-pain of having "so many" people review EPRs... but when shit like this gets through, they wish someone would have taken the time to properly review the document before it became a matter of record.

Projects left of previous EPR could have been captured in new EPR, on an LOE, or in a push note from CC.

takthekak
10-04-2009, 03:23 AM
There is a difference between (essentially) firing a supervisor (removing supervisory responsibility) and moving someone to a different supervisor and CROing someone for the sole intent of putting another report on top.

If the rater's rater (usually immediate supervisor of rater) was doing their job, these mistakes would not occur! People bitch about the ass-pain of having "so many" people review EPRs... but when shit like this gets through, they wish someone would have taken the time to properly review the document before it became a matter of record.

Projects left of previous EPR could have been captured in new EPR, on an LOE, or in a push note from CC.

Yeah...The CC would not do a push note becuase the Group CC was new and didn't want to push back yet on anything...What pisses me off is when the chain sucks, for instance my wife had a decoration from her last Squadron get a closeout/approval date of Jan 1st. The whole chain let it go up without moving it back 1 day, so she would get points for testing to MSgt...Perhaps it was intentional, but knowing her chain, probably not. I guess I am saying that sadly people suck even pretty high up in chains. I know plenty of fellow MSgt's who hate doing EPRs and Decs and those are about the most important things in people's careers. I look forward to the day when WAPS is performance based and not test performance based.

bcoco14
10-04-2009, 05:51 PM
While I think its safe to say that the system isn't going to change anytime soon. It has to come from the top. There's so much of this "make the hard choice" but when you do its questioned. Then you have the infamous good ol boy club where if you have been at a base for an extended period of time you end up with your "buddy" writing your awards packages and EPR's and he's not marking you down. There is so much riding on an EPR now days that with out a "firewall" your just about dead in the water.

While I have never had anything below a 5 not all of mine have been "firewalls" and I am willing to admit that 2 or 3 of them probably should have been 4's. The repercussions of 1 idiot supervisor rating have lasting effects so I can agree with the CRO shuffle. That is a way current supervision can correct a mistake/injustice. I had one of my markdowns during a year in Korea. In that year I was never late to work, won a few awards and was truly one of the best workers in my shop. On the other hand there was a person who I became close friends with. He had financial problems and on 1 occasion was late for work and was found passed out drunk in the hallway of a dorm that wasn't his 6 hours later. When he got to work they stuffed him in the truck to keep the Chief or Capt from seeing him. He received a "firewall" 5 and a commendation after his year. I received a markdown in off duty conduct for not attending as many off-duty Sq events that my supervisor had liked. He ultimately did a push letter for my commendation letter witch was immediately shot down by the commander.

That 3 points cost me a promotion to Tech that yr witch ironically my friend had made by 1. That 1 markdown also cost me 2 different QA positions at my following base. I was removed from contention and it was eventually given to a person who was not very bright to say the least.

Here's my fix, take the WAPS points away form the EPR system.

1. Use EPR's as a sole base for decorations and promotion eligibility and apply DEC points to promotions.

2. Toss out your TIG/TIS points, if you want to do written tests for promotion then make that your focus

3. Seeing as how there's been such a big emphasis on the PT program add those points to your total.

Then you really are promoting the most deserving not just the guy who's content to stay a Staff or Tech until they have racked up enough TIG/TIS point to just sign their name and pick up there stripe. Reward those who study and make those who don't want to re-evaluate their goals.

CrustySMSgt
10-04-2009, 10:20 PM
That 3 points cost me a promotion to Tech that yr witch ironically my friend had made by 1. That 1 markdown also cost me 2 different QA positions at my following base. I was removed from contention and it was eventually given to a person who was not very bright to say the least.

Here's my fix, take the WAPS points away form the EPR system.

1. Use EPR's as a sole base for decorations and promotion eligibility and apply DEC points to promotions.

2. Toss out your TIG/TIS points, if you want to do written tests for promotion then make that your focus

3. Seeing as how there's been such a big emphasis on the PT program add those points to your total.

Then you really are promoting the most deserving not just the guy who's content to stay a Staff or Tech until they have racked up enough TIG/TIS point to just sign their name and pick up there stripe. Reward those who study and make those who don't want to re-evaluate their goals.

Question #1: What did you score on the tests the year "that 3 points cost you TSgt?"

#2: You just recounted your situation where an EPR cost you a dec. If EPRs would still be used for dec consideration, what would stop people from continuing to inflate them, if a markdown would cost them a dec?

#3: No points for experience? YGTBFSM! So in your ideal Air Force, a book smart guy with zero practical experience ought to compete on the same level as someone who actually knows how to do the job? With this plan, someone could go in and knock out 80s on their tests, make it first time every time and be leading those who actually know how to do the job.

#4: Are you saying PT is more important that experience? When they come up with a PT eval that accuratley demonstrates fitness across the board, instead of promoting appearance and running over rounded fitness, I might agree with you... but for now, PT scores don't belong in WAPS.

WAPS is a very fair system, accouting for superior service (decs), experience, general & AFSC specific knowledge, and performance. Do your job as a supervisor and the right Airmen get promoted.

bcoco14
10-04-2009, 10:54 PM
Question #1: What did you score on the tests the year "that 3 points cost you TSgt?"
310

#2: You just recounted your situation where an EPR cost you a dec. If EPRs would still be used for dec consideration, what would stop people from continuing to inflate them, if a markdown would cost them a dec?

None but the overall impact would be less.

#3: No points for experience? YGTBFSM! So in your ideal Air Force, a book smart guy with zero practical experience ought to compete on the same level as someone who actually knows how to do the job? With this plan, someone could go in and knock out 80s on their tests, make it first time every time and be leading those who actually know how to do the job.

I will admit this still has me thinking but I don't believe in "book smarts" or those who don't "test well" There are those that apply themselves and those that don't.

#4: Are you saying PT is more important that experience? When they come up with a PT eval that accurately demonstrates fitness across the board, instead of promoting appearance and running over rounded fitness, I might agree with you... but for now, PT scores don't belong in WAPS.

I HATE the PT system and personally think the Ergo system served AF purposes just fine. Just stating that if you fail a PT test you get a referral EPR and cant WAPS test. Might as well give some points to those that pass if its so important.

WAPS is a very fair system, accouting for superior service (decs), experience, general & AFSC specific knowledge, and performance. Do your job as a supervisor and the right Airmen get promoted.

Its is up to my airman to get promoted I do what I can but its them in the testing room not me.

bcoco14
10-04-2009, 10:59 PM
1.) 310
2.)None but the overall impact would be less.
3.) I will admit this still has me thinking but I don't believe in "book smarts" or those who don't "test well" There are those that apply themselves and those that don't.
4.) I HATE the PT system and personally think the Ergo system served AF purposes just fine. Just stating that if you fail a PT test you get a referral EPR and cant WAPS test. Might as well give some points to those that pass if its so important.

Sorry if this created confusion

CrustySMSgt
10-04-2009, 11:01 PM
1.) 310

What were your SKT & PDG scores individually?

bcoco14
10-04-2009, 11:07 PM
What were your SKT & PDG scores individually?

60's and i'm not quite sure where your going with this?

Jumper5
10-04-2009, 11:38 PM
60's and i'm not quite sure where your going with this?

Study more and score higher.

Michaep
10-04-2009, 11:41 PM
People have been making rank for long enough....since the Service started in the first place.

The system cant be that broken if there are still promotions being made all the time

takthekak
10-05-2009, 02:21 AM
The big issues are what bothers me. First there is a connection to the PT and EPR mess. Both were over inflated to the benefit of the force. The stats showed that almost everyone got 5's and almost everyone passed their PT test and everyone knows that each is not true. Their answer to the PT mess is to take it out of our hands and give it to the HAWC. Basically not having the NCO/SNCOs, etc fix it. Of course this fix will mean more people are going to fail their tests. Finally on the PT topic, they are making it a individual program again.
Next, the EPR inflation issue will not be taken on by AF leadership and supposedly us NCO/SNO's, etc will stand up and fix it, once again meaning more 3 and 4 EPRs. Perhaps if the HAWC can also write our EPRs, we can knock out 2 birds with 1 stone :-) Seriously though, sadly both programs show everyone knew both systems (PT and EPR) sucked and were screwed up by leadership/AF, so we all said to hell with it and everyone got 5's and passed their PT tests. What does that say, does it mean that all airman have no "integrity first" or that leadership kept screwing it up and we all got sick of it. I mean think about it, the whole force did this. The end result in 2010 will be PT failures, referral EPR's and 3 & 4 EPR's, so tell me, who really wins here? In the end, leadership and the AF failed miserably in both endeavors. To make matters worse, they are saying they will not fix it, we will. When I hear anyone say something like that, I immediately stop listening to them and figure they have no backbone or vision. We do not have leaders, we have spokesman! and the force has been paying for it.

Shadowless
10-05-2009, 02:31 AM
The only way the Air Force will ever fix the EPR system is to have a chest list. Map it all out, if you fill in the blocks needed for a 5 then you get a 5, if you fill in all but 2-3 you get a 4 and so on. That is the easiest, and man power friendly way of doing so. No need to spend weeks on end trying to make up a bullet or make taking out the trash sound like a global event.

The EPR is suppose to be the 'whole' Airman concept so you must include pt some sort, some way. Personally I think if you fail your pt test you get a 4 automatically, you get your months to try to pass the test, if you pass you keep the 4, if not you get a 3. (this goes for msgts and up as well). A question that could be asked is, well what if I pass with a 76, do I still receive a 5? Well that is based on the checklist that the AirForce decides to go with, imo I would say no, but if you score a 76 and then work your ass off to the point you raise that 76 to a 80 or 82 before your close out then yes I can see you receiving a 5 as long as all your other checklist items are completed.

CrustySMSgt
10-05-2009, 01:57 PM
60's and i'm not quite sure where your going with this?


Study more and score higher.

What Jumper said...

at least you scored above the pitiful average most people score... but with scores in the 60s... dec points didn't cost you your promotion... your scores did. And since you said yourself test scores directly reflect level of effort, you failed yourself... and your dec points had nothing to do with you not getting promoted.

Measure Man
10-05-2009, 02:22 PM
I'm a long time proponent of a quota system for EPRs.

The more I think about it though...I'm not sure it would affect WHO gets promoted.

The AF promotes those who want it the most...I don't think that would change.

BUT, having EPR scores that you really had ot work hard to achieve, would motivate people to give their best.

bcoco14
10-05-2009, 02:43 PM
What Jumper said...

at least you scored above the pitiful average most people score... but with scores in the 60s... dec points didn't cost you your promotion... your scores did. And since you said yourself test scores directly reflect level of effort, you failed yourself... and your dec points had nothing to do with you not getting promoted.

I disagree my SKT score was in the 98% of my AFSC only a few people scored higher. My PDG score was in the 95%. While it can be said TIG/TIS kept me from getting promoted I tend to lead tword the dec that I earned. You can always say that if I had scored 90's and missed it that I should have studied more. Anything less than perfection can always be impoved. As I was so close to the top I don't feel it was lack of effort.

With that said I studied for and made it the following year. I am only pointing out that if anything is going to change I think the whole system needs to be torn apart and rebuilt and thats never going to happen. Yes people get screwed either picking up someone elses slack not getting a dec or anyother thing you can think of. In 10 years from now we will still be having this same discussion and nothing will have changed.

Shadowless
10-05-2009, 04:37 PM
I disagree my SKT score was in the 98% of my AFSC only a few people scored higher. My PDG score was in the 95%. While it can be said TIG/TIS kept me from getting promoted I tend to lead tword the dec that I earned. You can always say that if I had scored 90's and missed it that I should have studied more. Anything less than perfection can always be impoved. As I was so close to the top I don't feel it was lack of effort.

With that said I studied for and made it the following year. I am only pointing out that if anything is going to change I think the whole system needs to be torn apart and rebuilt and thats never going to happen. Yes people get screwed either picking up someone elses slack not getting a dec or anyother thing you can think of. In 10 years from now we will still be having this same discussion and nothing will have changed.

Wait I am confused, you scored in the top 98% and 95% and DID NOT get promoted? Wow, if that is true then the entire promotion system is seriously jacked up, I don't care about TIG/TIS if someone scores that high and does not make it then studying is pointless and I won't waste my time studying next promotion cycle.

imported_Gigglendorf
10-05-2009, 08:23 PM
I disagree my SKT score was in the 98% of my AFSC only a few people scored higher. My PDG score was in the 95%. While it can be said TIG/TIS kept me from getting promoted I tend to lead tword the dec that I earned. You can always say that if I had scored 90's and missed it that I should have studied more. Anything less than perfection can always be impoved. As I was so close to the top I don't feel it was lack of effort.

With that said I studied for and made it the following year. I am only pointing out that if anything is going to change I think the whole system needs to be torn apart and rebuilt and thats never going to happen. Yes people get screwed either picking up someone elses slack not getting a dec or anyother thing you can think of. In 10 years from now we will still be having this same discussion and nothing will have changed.

Having few people managing to out-score you, and not having another point or two that you could have scored to overcome not having decs are VERY different issues.

My last PFE test score was a 56 (No, I didn't really study.), and I outscored more than 70% of my peers on that test. I could have done significantly better on that test had I been willing to make the test score important enough in my life.

The question you need to find your own answer to is how important is getting promoted TO YOU. Then you need to spend the time on it based on that level of importance. If you claim it is th emost important thing in your life, but you are here, trolling this forum instead of studying, or doing those off-duty activities which help win awards to boost your name recognition and EPRs, then your behavior indicates that getting promoted is not that important to you.

How you apportion your time displays what your priorities ACTUALLY are. Few (if any) of use actually care what your priorities are. I hope you do, though.

Oh, and whining about not getting the expected result as opposed to asking what you can do to make the difference next time is indicative of an entitlement attitude instead of an ongoing effort to achieve the goal. That comment is an observation comment. Arguing with my observation won't accomplish anything, except maybe helping you feel better about yourself.

imported_Gigglendorf
10-05-2009, 08:27 PM
Wait I am confused, you scored in the top 98% and 95% and DID NOT get promoted? Wow, if that is true then the entire promotion system is seriously jacked up, I don't care about TIG/TIS if someone scores that high and does not make it then studying is pointless and I won't waste my time studying next promotion cycle.

The difference between the top 98% and the top 70% is USUALLY only about 3 answers.

He used the percentiles instead of the scores because he knows the scores do not support his complaint

Given that the normal complaint about our NCO corps these days is a lack of experience, and that 3 questions is roughly equivalent to 6~8 months of experience, as far as the points calculations are concerned, I'm curious what you think this example math says about the advertised position.

CrustySMSgt
10-05-2009, 10:09 PM
I disagree my SKT score was in the 98% of my AFSC only a few people scored higher. My PDG score was in the 95%. While it can be said TIG/TIS kept me from getting promoted I tend to lead tword the dec that I earned. You can always say that if I had scored 90's and missed it that I should have studied more. Anything less than perfection can always be impoved. As I was so close to the top I don't feel it was lack of effort.

With that said I studied for and made it the following year. I am only pointing out that if anything is going to change I think the whole system needs to be torn apart and rebuilt and thats never going to happen. Yes people get screwed either picking up someone elses slack not getting a dec or anyother thing you can think of. In 10 years from now we will still be having this same discussion and nothing will have changed.

You left 70-ish points on the table... can't blame a handful of dec points on your not making the cut.

I agree changes need to be made... but comparing yourself to the pitiful average scores for all the AFSC, which range in the 40s may make you sound good... where did your score stand amongst the selects? You can't compare yourself to the losers and say "I'm better." You can only make an viable argument that you should have been on the other side by showing your numbers were comparable or better to thiers.


Wait I am confused, you scored in the top 98% and 95% and DID NOT get promoted? Wow, if that is true then the entire promotion system is seriously jacked up, I don't care about TIG/TIS if someone scores that high and does not make it then studying is pointless and I won't waste my time studying next promotion cycle.

He may have scored in the top 90s of the ENTIRE eligible pool... which includes those scoring in the 20s. As I said above, I'd like to hear where his scored stacked up against the selects...

Shadowless
10-05-2009, 11:28 PM
You left 70-ish points on the table... can't blame a handful of dec points on your not making the cut.

I agree changes need to be made... but comparing yourself to the pitiful average scores for all the AFSC, which range in the 40s may make you sound good... where did your score stand amongst the selects? You can't compare yourself to the losers and say "I'm better." You can only make an viable argument that you should have been on the other side by showing your numbers were comparable or better to thiers.



He may have scored in the top 90s of the ENTIRE eligible pool... which includes those scoring in the 20s. As I said above, I'd like to hear where his scored stacked up against the selects...

CrustySMSgt,

Let me ask you this, you have been around alot longer then me. So out of curiousity since you made all the ranks already for the most part, what would you say is the average PFE, and SKT scores needed for promotion? Example, if I want to make Tech the first time around what kind of scores am I looking at needing to set this goal?

takthekak
10-06-2009, 02:23 AM
Just my 2 cents of advice if people want to get promoted...Of course people
tailor what they need, for example people may have retentions issues and may not
want to study too early. I was told years ago by Chiefs to read the PFE 6 times
and hit my CDC's hard. Well I recommend reading the PDG at least 5 times, if not
a strong reader, you can break it down to 10 pages a day for 1 1/2 months, then
switch to the CDC gold software for a month and back to the PDG and so on.
If you study for a solid year, right up to testing, it will surely pay off. I was never
a great tester, but when I finally did the above, I got a 87.65 testing PDG only,
last year and made MSgt...I always tell me troops, it's never too early to study...When
someone puts on SrA, I ask when they will start studying, when they make SSgt, I ask
when the TSgt studying starts and finally for my TSgt's I have been reminding the ones
who have given up making MSgt, that it's never too late and they still have time to give
themselves a good chance...Ultimately, it's an individual decision to study and make rank.
Never listen to anyone who tells you, you cannot make it your first time. I will say though
that when I first came in, I had some co-workers who needed 105 on the test to make SSgt,
this was in '92...Now most troops need a 50 score...my, have times changed...

imported_Gigglendorf
10-06-2009, 03:43 AM
CrustySMSgt,

Let me ask you this, you have been around alot longer then me. So out of curiousity since you made all the ranks already for the most part, what would you say is the average PFE, and SKT scores needed for promotion? Example, if I want to make Tech the first time around what kind of scores am I looking at needing to set this goal?

I know, I'm not CrustySMSgt, but . . ..

As noted by takthekak, when I was a young Airman, perfect APRs meant that I needed to average something like 107 on the two tests in order to meet the cut-off for SSgt.

When I was competing for TSgt, it was acknowledged as the most difficult rank to make in the USAF. Today, with the adjusted (much fatter) rank structure, I'm being told that SMSgt is the hardest rank to make . . ..

I can't say that the thing about SMSgt being hardest now is true. I honestly don't know. People used to be able to demonstrate mathematically that TSgt used to be, though. I know in my career field, the cut-off to make TSgt was about 20 points higher than the cut-off to make SSgt. The reset on TIG points more than made up for the gains in TIS points. FAR more.

As for what kind of scores you need to plan for, I would look at the cut-offs in your career field today, and assume that you have to get a score 10 points higher as a minimum. Then, study the material so that you know you're going to score well enough on the tests to give yourself a 15~20 point cushion past that estimated required score.

The question is not what score can we tell you you need to make, because all we can do is guess. The question is how much effort are you willing to put into eliminating all doubt that you can easily beat the estimates? How important is getting that stripe to you?

BTW, I haven't worked with anyone focused enough on that next stripe to be dedicated enough to make the score no matter what for whom I would ever want to work . . .. Or that I would want to put in charge of other people. There's a hell of a lot more to being an effective leader than the number of stripes on a sleeve. Stripes are just a paycheck to those focused on adding stripe count at all costs. That's not what they are supposed to be in the military.

CrustySMSgt
10-06-2009, 01:11 PM
CrustySMSgt,

Let me ask you this, you have been around alot longer then me. So out of curiousity since you made all the ranks already for the most part, what would you say is the average PFE, and SKT scores needed for promotion? Example, if I want to make Tech the first time around what kind of scores am I looking at needing to set this goal?

the historical data is out there... look at the average numbers for the selects in your AFSC. Then you can directly compare yourself to those you're competing against. If your TIG/TIS or dec points are lower, then you'll ahve to score higher... so if you look over the last couple years what the average test scores for your AFSC are, you'll have a ball park number to shoot for. But my advice is don't have a target score... or at least one lower than 100... lol


Just my 2 cents of advice if people want to get promoted...Of course people
tailor what they need, for example people may have retentions issues and may not
want to study too early. I was told years ago by Chiefs to read the PFE 6 times
and hit my CDC's hard.

Everonye has their own methods; you know what works for you. Traditionally SKT scores are higher than PDG scores, so if you've got a very diverse AFSC, you can make money studying the PDG. SOme people can study all year... but I'm a crammer... if I study for more than a 2-3 weeks, I get burned out and quit. Learn what works best for you and go with it.


I know, I'm not CrustySMSgt, but . . ..

The question is not what score can we tell you you need to make, because all we can do is guess. The question is how much effort are you willing to put into eliminating all doubt that you can easily beat the estimates? How important is getting that stripe to you?



That's the best advice there... those who make it early do so because they put more effort into it than those who finally learn to spell their name right. Other than performing well, the only other part you have complete control over is the test Learn what works for you and put in the time and effort to master the material, and you'll rise to the top. Settle for being at the average in the 40s or 50s, and you won't. Don't leaving anything to chance... you control 200 points of the total score!

mfjdspence
10-08-2009, 04:44 AM
You know...I like of like the position Chief took. It basically boils down to the phrase, "If you think its broke, you fix it."

In the end, the only way we are ever going to honestly stop EPR inflation is to reduce our system to a Go-No Go system just like the Officers and more than likely the civilians again. Any other kind of system encourages inflation and favoritism.

The additional caveat would be that regarldess of what system gets into place someone is going to complain regardless.

CrustySMSgt
10-08-2009, 09:14 AM
You know...I like of like the position Chief took. It basically boils down to the phrase, "If you think its broke, you fix it."

In the end, the only way we are ever going to honestly stop EPR inflation is to reduce our system to a Go-No Go system just like the Officers and more than likely the civilians again. Any other kind of system encourages inflation and favoritism.

The additional caveat would be that regarldess of what system gets into place someone is going to complain regardless.

How about that weak-ass typhoon... turned out to be a great bonus day off! Hope y'all CE folk weren't too busy!

mfjdspence
10-09-2009, 11:50 AM
I was stuck down the EOC watching the wind meters peg at a whopping 35 mph. Ended up reading a book most of the time until the cleanup started. Wasn't as bad as that microburst a couple of years back. I was at work for that one too setting up a new map system with some contractors when it hit. That caused way more damage that the other day.

I was just happy that your Bldg's power didn't go down honestly because that would been more headache for everyone, even yourself I imagine.

Were you at home enjoying it?

AGE Guy
10-24-2009, 05:48 PM
Was struggling over how to rate one of my troops the other day.

Now, I don't think he's a 5. I know he didn't put forth his best efforts when he was working for me. He didn't screw anything up, but he didn't make anything better either.

However- amongst his peers (he's a SSgt select now) he's above average. He is sharp on PT, volunteerism, uniform, customs and curtousies, etc... won an award in ALS... he just didn't show initiative in the 5 months he worked in my section. Of course, our section was two old TSgts, myself, and him... and he easily beat the two TSgts if I was stratifying :)

In the end, I tried to find out what his peers had been rated at. He got a 5. After I saw some of the other SrA who had recieved 5's, in the same shop, I couldn't rate him a 4.

That's the problem Crusty... if I help someone who doesn't really belong getting promoted to do so, I may be screwing someone down the line... but everyone else in the Air Force is allready doing it- so why should MY GUY be the one that gets left behind?

nittanytbone
10-24-2009, 11:21 PM
While deployed I was able to fill out USN EPRs. I really enjoyed the experience, honestly. They track the average rating given by the RATERS over the rater's career, and put it right on the report. So, if you see that someone got a 4, but their rater has an average score of 2.8, then you know they really are above average and earned that score. If you see a 5, but the rater gives everyone a 5, then you know that it doesn't mean much.

This breaks down for the few leaders that really help develop their troops and get the most of out of their troops. It also might break down for some really high speed units that tend to attract the best of the best naturally. However, I think I can fairly say that this is a small part of the bell curve of leaders. For the majority of the bell curve of supervisors that do an adequete job of checking the containers for mandatory feedback events, sending people to ALS and other expected training, etc, then I think it works fine. Additionally, truly inspiring leaders tend to become pretty well known within their career fields even as Captains or Techs, so if you see a lot of 4s and 5s from those individuals it probably will look ok.

Additionally, I noticed that Quarterly awards were not a big deal in the USN, in part because they have honest evals. We waste a lot of time on quarterly awards because its the only way to strat folks. I rarely see someone actually feel good or be surprised for getting a quarterly; often, its coldly calculated by the supervisor and ratee ("We're putting you in for an award package in three months... This is what we'll have to do to ensure you are competitive...") because we all know that unless an airman commits a crime, then its likely a firewall 5 -- so those awards are the only discriminator when it comes time to justify an above average EOT decoration or special duty assignment.

nittanytbone
10-24-2009, 11:25 PM
You know...I like of like the position Chief took. It basically boils down to the phrase, "If you think its broke, you fix it."

In the end, the only way we are ever going to honestly stop EPR inflation is to reduce our system to a Go-No Go system just like the Officers and more than likely the civilians again. Any other kind of system encourages inflation and favoritism.

The problem with this is that a no-go is career ending. Thus, the only people who will get no-gos tend to be criminals.

Airmen are not go/no-go. Most are average -- they work hard, give good effort, are reasonably competent at their jobs, etc. Some are really sharp, and its usually easy to identify them. Some are good but not quite ready to move up -- but probably will be in a little bit. A very few are criminal, or criminally incompetent.

A no-go system lumps most of those folks into a generic "go" category and a very few into "no-go." It hurts your high achievers and pushes your "almost but not quites" forward too soon.

AGE Guy
10-26-2009, 01:07 AM
Oddly enough, I really think the reserves have it right. If you have a 35 person shop, you have 5 tech slots. One of 'em opens up, the flight chief picks the best staff to fill it. Or recommends a couple to the commander and lets the commander pick.

Favoritism and all that blah blah blah... favorites usually are for a reason, and there is absolutely no way that it could be worse then deciding it by standardised testing on Air Force History.

Silver Fox
10-26-2009, 05:25 AM
The AF promotes those who want it the most...I don't think that would change.


Not true. I never studied for WAPS testing once, I always made it first time around.... and I know guys who studied their ass off and bombed it.

The WAPS test is written for a high school education, and therefore is like any high school test: People of average intelligence that study will pass, intelligent slackers or people who really don't care if they get promoted or not but are intelligent will pass, but the slower kids will still have a hard time. ;)


For me? It wasn't that I didn't *want* to get promoted, I just knew the test would be easy as fuck.... and I was right.

AlanW
10-27-2009, 01:49 AM
Not true. I never studied for WAPS testing once, I always made it first time around.... and I know guys who studied their ass off and bombed it.

The WAPS test is written for a high school education, and therefore is like any high school test: People of average intelligence that study will pass, intelligent slackers or people who really don't care if they get promoted or not but are intelligent will pass, but the slower kids will still have a hard time. ;)


For me? It wasn't that I didn't *want* to get promoted, I just knew the test would be easy as fuck.... and I was right.

Silver Fox,

You passed first time, every time, and never even studied (I think that is BS). You must have been a CMSgt Silver Fox. I think the WAPS is personally harder than you are making it sound, and It does require some studying to do well. I think a lot has to do with certain career fields, being easier than others are.

Silver Fox
10-27-2009, 03:53 AM
Silver Fox,

You passed first time, every time, and never even studied (I think that is BS). You must have been a CMSgt Silver Fox. I think the WAPS is personally harder than you are making it sound, and It does require some studying to do well. I think a lot has to do with certain career fields, being easier than others are.

No, I never made it to the SNCO tier, wasn't in long enough, and I probably wouldn't have made many SNCO ranks on the first try, as I'm not nearly politically concerned enough to get away with that.

I'll be a little immodest and say I'm smarter than the average bear, and to me, the test was easy as all hell.

imported_BRAVO10000
10-27-2009, 05:27 AM
CrustySMSgt,

Let me ask you this, you have been around alot longer then me. So out of curiousity since you made all the ranks already for the most part, what would you say is the average PFE, and SKT scores needed for promotion? Example, if I want to make Tech the first time around what kind of scores am I looking at needing to set this goal?

In my experience, the "bar" for promotability in terms of scores was around 75%. That has changed over the years, but usually when people start sharing their scores/getting promoted stories, they are generally mid-70s or better.

I made Staff in '91 with a cutoff at 311 and change, second time testing and just over 4 years TIS. That was considered an anomaly at the time, since the majority of Staff selects were at their 6 to 7 yars TIS mark. There was actually a stigma associated with being a "fast burner"...you were shunned by your new "peers" until you proved that you could lead and that you weren't a professional student ("book smart" but worthless on the job, most would say then).

Then, I made Tech in '96 with a 340-something cutoff, (and yes - it was a hard stripe to make). I hit a 90 and an 83 for that stripe; I was in the books 6 nights a week for almost 5 months. As stripes go, that one took the most concentrated single effort.

Odd that I don't remember my cutoff for Master in '03...I just remember that, by the math, it was easier to make than Tech was.

As for Senior - new dimension added. You can study like crazy and come nowhere near it. In fact, one of my peers was a first-time tester and had an 86-plus on his PDG, and a board score of 375 (pretty damned good for a first board). He missed his 670-plus cutoff by over 30 points. I would say that this stripe demanded the career-long accomplishments (especially over the last 5 years) than it did a single year's study effort. The test score averages are way down - that's because you "make your money" on that board score. Board scores can be as high as 450...carries a lot more weight than that 100 point test. That selection board of a Colonel and two Chiefs reads every EPR and Dec from your career and looks for some qualifiers before rating your accomplishments (Senior Rater's endorsement). Contrary to popular opinion, Senior isn't one of those stripes that you get by "waiting long enough and signing your name right".

However, it is still exploitable...board scores are usually high for those going back to their career fields from a special duty as a Shirt, PME instructor, recruiter or TI. If someone is willing to take 3 to 4 years away from their career field and do this, their board scores typically come in very high once they get back.

AlanW
10-27-2009, 10:22 AM
BRAVO,

That was an excellent post, with very good information. You obviously studied very hard to get where you are at. Great job.

Comm Chief
10-27-2009, 12:27 PM
No, I never made it to the SNCO tier, wasn't in long enough, and I probably wouldn't have made many SNCO ranks on the first try, as I'm not nearly politically concerned enough to get away with that.

I'll be a little immodest and say I'm smarter than the average bear, and to me, the test was easy as all hell.

No way you made TSgt first time without studying, even with today's promotion rates.

Silver Fox
10-27-2009, 04:58 PM
No way you made TSgt first time without studying, even with today's promotion rates.

Speak for yourself. Some people can read something once and remember it for years afterward.

When I tested for staff I was at the cut off for Tech points wise... don't know why that's hard to believe.

Comm Chief
10-27-2009, 05:53 PM
Speak for yourself. Some people can read something once and remember it for years afterward.

When I tested for staff I was at the cut off for Tech points wise... don't know why that's hard to believe.

Its still hard for people that study to make TSgt the first time, let alone not cracking a book. Never met anyone able to do that, at least in my community.

In what AFSC and what year did you make TSgt without studying? Maybe its a one volume CDC and everyone else is on crack.

bb stacker
10-27-2009, 05:54 PM
doubt it, sounds like SF is full of shit.

Silver Fox
10-28-2009, 05:30 AM
doubt it, sounds like SF is full of shit.

You guys must not know the security forces career field very well.

imported_BRAVO10000
10-28-2009, 02:10 PM
You guys must not know the security forces career field very well.

Curiosity got the best of me. I just looked up the cutoffs for 3P0X1...310.83 this year. Currently, a guy with a service date of 1 June 04 and a DOR (SSgt) at 1 June 07, perfect EPR scores and a single AFCM needs to average 71. Now I haven't gone into detail to see what TIS/TIG minimums would be to test for Tech, before anyone jumps on my back here, but benefit of the doubt...71s isn't typical or even likely for someone that hasn't studied, but it isn't impossible by any stretch. People routinely pull 50s without studying a lick.

Don't get me wrong, SF and I agree on very, very little. Just saying it isn't completely inplausible.

Comm Chief
10-28-2009, 03:04 PM
Curiosity got the best of me. I just looked up the cutoffs for 3P0X1...310.83 this year. Currently, a guy with a service date of 1 June 04 and a DOR (SSgt) at 1 June 07, perfect EPR scores and a single AFCM needs to average 71. Now I haven't gone into detail to see what TIS/TIG minimums would be to test for Tech, before anyone jumps on my back here, but benefit of the doubt...71s isn't typical or even likely for someone that hasn't studied, but it isn't impossible by any stretch. People routinely pull 50s without studying a lick.

Don't get me wrong, SF and I agree on very, very little. Just saying it isn't completely inplausible.

Wow, I guess it is plausible in some AFSCs. And that isn't even the lowest 2009 cut-off. I see there is a 50 point difference between the lowest and highest cuttoff...does anyone study anymore?

Still, I think it would be rather difficult in an AFSC with substantial CDCs.

bb stacker
10-28-2009, 04:24 PM
thats still pretty tough to pull of without studying.

BRUWIN
10-28-2009, 04:42 PM
Curiosity got the best of me. I just looked up the cutoffs for 3P0X1...310.83 this year. Currently, a guy with a service date of 1 June 04 and a DOR (SSgt) at 1 June 07, perfect EPR scores and a single AFCM needs to average 71. Now I haven't gone into detail to see what TIS/TIG minimums would be to test for Tech, before anyone jumps on my back here, but benefit of the doubt...71s isn't typical or even likely for someone that hasn't studied, but it isn't impossible by any stretch. People routinely pull 50s without studying a lick.

Don't get me wrong, SF and I agree on very, very little. Just saying it isn't completely inplausible.

I think SF has been smoking crack and gulping to much Mad Dog 20/20 from a brown paper bag since he's got out. I wonder how he even gets internet access living under a bridge.

Silver Fox
10-29-2009, 03:20 AM
I think SF has been smoking crack and gulping to much Mad Dog 20/20 from a brown paper bag since he's got out. I wonder how he even gets internet access living under a bridge.

I steal it from your house. :rolleyes: You should password your shit and stop looking at porn.


I haven't said anything new.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 06:21 AM
I flat out will not start writing 3's and 4's for my airmen just to start establishing a new standard. As all I will be doing is jacking up my ratees chances for a stripe who are most likely going up against other airmen who are worse than them but whose supervisors aren't following suit.

It can't start with the front line supervisors, it has to start from way above that with a strictly monitored single point approval system. Basically it would require a new AFSC that does nothing but approve ratings based on blanket guidance and criteria. A single point approval authority E-9 for each AFSC that does nothing all day but approve/disapprove EPR scores that go through his office at Maxwell or Randolph.

CrustySMSgt
07-07-2013, 11:54 AM
I flat out will not start writing 3's and 4's for my airmen just to start establishing a new standard. As all I will be doing is jacking up my ratees chances for a stripe who are most likely going up against other airmen who are worse than them but whose supervisors aren't following suit.


I just don't get this mentality. I do understand your desire to look out for your troops, but if you're troop is average, it doesn't matter what the other guy is getting, they're still average. And as long as people keep screwing those who are above average by lumping the average folks in with them, they have no one but themselves to blame with those average troops catch up to them and are stuck doing their job for them.

Chief_KO
07-07-2013, 01:53 PM
When EPRs first came out there was an "informal, recommended, advised" quota regarding how many 5s a workcenter, flight, squadron, wing should have. I used the quotes because it was never put into an AFI/AFR. But initially everyone started off that way. Very very rarely did a first term Airman receive a 5 on his first EPR. Retrainees very rarely received a 5 on their first EPR in their new AFSC. Front sides looked like a shot gun blast with markings all over, there was enough white space to drive a HUMMV thru. When the new form and recommendations came out, the unit I was assigned to stated (verbally): No one could receive a 5 without having completed or being enrolled in PME by correspondence (back then it was rare for the typical SNCO to attend SNCOA in residence). My boss, who was a pretty good MSgt did not do his, and received an overall 4 despite doing some kick a$$ work stuff. He knew that going in and had no complaints cause it was his decision.
Unfortunately the only way to corral this inflation is for the AF to institute a quota (IMO). Perhaps waiverable by the Wg/CC. And the only way to make it possible is for all reports to close out 1 month prior to their respective next rank's PECD (IMO). Also allow "negative language" be used...How can you have an accurate report of performance without allowing negative language (outside of a referral)? Why not allow "Amn Johnny consistently struggles to perform the simplest duty tasks" "MSgt Johnny refuses to enroll in off duty education". "SSgt Johnny weakly leads subordinates"
Until then someone receiving a 3 is really someone who should have received a referral and a 4 is reserved for someone who failed PT or just doesn't do anything but come to work.

UH1FE
07-07-2013, 02:27 PM
I flat out will not start writing 3's and 4's for my airmen just to start establishing a new standard. As all I will be doing is jacking up my ratees chances for a stripe who are most likely going up against other airmen who are worse than them but whose supervisors aren't following suit.

It can't start with the front line supervisors, it has to start from way above that with a strictly monitored single point approval system. Basically it would require a new AFSC that does nothing but approve ratings based on blanket guidance and criteria. A single point approval authority E-9 for each AFSC that does nothing all day but approve/disapprove EPR scores that go through his office at Maxwell or Randolph.

Every where I have been the group E-9 does this already.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 03:52 PM
Every where I have been the group E-9 does this already.

I am aware of that. I was suggesting a single point approval authority for each AFSC. Basically like another functional manager, but for approving EPR's.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 03:58 PM
I just don't get this mentality. I do understand your desire to look out for your troops, but if you're troop is average, it doesn't matter what the other guy is getting, they're still average. And as long as people keep screwing those who are above average by lumping the average folks in with them, they have no one but themselves to blame with those average troops catch up to them and are stuck doing their job for them.

I get what you're saying, but if I write a 4 for a guy that will be going up against somebody who should be a 4 as well or even maybe a 3 but his supervisor wrote him a 5, all you have done is handicapped your ratee. Unless this mentality shift occurs Airforce wide at the same time and not by individual supervisors who are "taking a stand" it won't work how it should.

CrustySMSgt
07-07-2013, 04:20 PM
I get what you're saying, but if I write a 4 for a guy that will be going up against somebody who should be a 4 as well or even maybe a 3 but his supervisor wrote him a 5, all you have done is handicapped your ratee. Unless this mentality shift occurs Airforce wide at the same time and not by individual supervisors who are "taking a stand" it won't work how it should.

Let me try and put it another way... not sure what rank you are, but here's an example that should hit home. Say you are a MSgt who has a 2 TSgt troops. You work in an office that has 2 MSgts, with a workload that requires both of you to give 100% to get the job done. The junior TSgt is a hard charger who you work hard and he takes all you can throw at him; when you are out of the shop, you put him in charge because your other TSgt is average on a good day and isn't earning 5s; he is lazy and doesn't get his work done, but you don't want to "screw" him, so you keep giving them to him. MSgt results come out and your slacker gets promoted and the hard charger doesn't. Your other MSgt gets orders and leaves and now your slacker is your peer, and you're stuck picking up his slack in the office, staying late to get his work done. EPR time comes around and you both get the same 5. Who's getting screwed now?

Am so I naieve that I think everyone earning a 3 will start getting them tomorrow? No... but we've got to start tackling this problem. For a couple years after the APR switched to the EPR, this is exactly what we've been doing. Few do the right thing and everyone else doesn't want to "screw" the average people while the sharp folks are the one getting hosed.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 04:49 PM
Let me try and put it another way... not sure what rank you are, but here's an example that should hit home. Say you are a MSgt who has a 2 TSgt troops. You work in an office that has 2 MSgts, with a workload that requires both of you to give 100% to get the job done. The junior TSgt is a hard charger who you work hard and he takes all you can throw at him; when you are out of the shop, you put him in charge because your other TSgt is average on a good day and isn't earning 5s; he is lazy and doesn't get his work done, but you don't want to "screw" him, so you keep giving them to him. MSgt results come out and your slacker gets promoted and the hard charger doesn't. Your other MSgt gets orders and leaves and now your slacker is your peer, and you're stuck picking up his slack in the office, staying late to get his work done. EPR time comes around and you both get the same 5. Who's getting screwed now?

Am so I naieve that I think everyone earning a 3 will start getting them tomorrow? No... but we've got to start tackling this problem. For a couple years after the APR switched to the EPR, this is exactly what we've been doing. Few do the right thing and everyone else doesn't want to "screw" the average people while the sharp folks are the one getting hosed.

I don't give blanket 5's on all my ratees for the exact situation you outlined. I just recently wrote a 4 on a guy who is set on separating and already has "the goggles" on.

I understand what your saying, but this shift to a non-inflated system (which I agree is long overdue) needs to begin at the top. If not, then leadership is just being lazy because they know that it will be difficult to enforce which is why they let these 5's go through. The "Additional Rater" who is higher ranking gets a shot to help set the system straight as well, and the fact that he/she doesn't proves that it is a problem that supervision doesn't know how to correct properly as well.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-07-2013, 06:24 PM
Too many people inflate ratings on their people because "everyone else is too." With this mentality, honest ratings on sub-par ratees will never be given. It is impossible to expect EVERYONE ELSE to start giving honest ratings at the same time. With everyone waiting on everyone else to act, change will never happen.

Also, if you think you're helping your average SSgt by giving him 5s (when he should be a 4), why not think about the impact to the shops he'll one day be put in charge of? All you are doing is screwing everyone else by pushing this guy up to a rank where he'll suck as a supervisor and screw everyone else threw his ineptitude.

I'm convinced the EPR inflation will go away when INDIVIDUAL supervisors start acting like leaders instead of worrying about hurting feelings. It's not rocket science. Use feedbacks to communicate duty performance and recommended re-vectoring actions. At the end of the day, if the ratee still falls short, then the 3 or 4 EPR will not be a surprise.

KC-10 FE
07-07-2013, 06:49 PM
Too many people inflate ratings on their people because "everyone else is too." With this mentality, honest ratings on sub-par ratees will never be given. It is impossible to expect EVERYONE ELSE to start giving honest ratings at the same time. With everyone waiting on everyone else to act, change will never happen.

Also, if you think you're helping your average SSgt by giving him 5s (when he should be a 4), why not think about the impact to the shops he'll one day be put in charge of? All you are doing is screwing everyone else by pushing this guy up to a rank where he'll suck as a supervisor and screw everyone else threw his ineptitude.

I'm convinced the EPR inflation will go away when INDIVIDUAL supervisors start acting like leaders instead of worrying about hurting feelings. It's not rocket science. Use feedbacks to communicate duty performance and recommended re-vectoring actions. At the end of the day, if the ratee still falls short, then the 3 or 4 EPR will not be a surprise.

I agree. But unless the entire Airforce does it at the same time, the only thing that a supervisor will be doing by taking a stand solo will be helping other less deserving individuals promote easier

It has to happen Airforce wide simultaneously.

Class5Kayaker
07-09-2013, 04:30 PM
They could do it like the Navy does. The Navy has some equation that factors in the rater's average ratings over all the people they have rated on. So if you get a 5 from a rater who gives out 5's to everyone, it isn't worth as much as getting a 5 from someone who averages 4.1 on their overall ratings of everone they've rated in the past. That's how their system was explained to me and I was told raters are VERY aware of the average overall they have and having a really high average is not a good thing...it means you're a wussy-supervisor.

Brewhound
07-09-2013, 04:50 PM
Let me try and put it another way... not sure what rank you are, but here's an example that should hit home. Say you are a MSgt who has a 2 TSgt troops. You work in an office that has 2 MSgts, with a workload that requires both of you to give 100% to get the job done. The junior TSgt is a hard charger who you work hard and he takes all you can throw at him; when you are out of the shop, you put him in charge because your other TSgt is average on a good day and isn't earning 5s; he is lazy and doesn't get his work done, but you don't want to "screw" him, so you keep giving them to him. MSgt results come out and your slacker gets promoted and the hard charger doesn't. Your other MSgt gets orders and leaves and now your slacker is your peer, and you're stuck picking up his slack in the office, staying late to get his work done. EPR time comes around and you both get the same 5. Who's getting screwed now?

Am so I naieve that I think everyone earning a 3 will start getting them tomorrow? No... but we've got to start tackling this problem. For a couple years after the APR switched to the EPR, this is exactly what we've been doing. Few do the right thing and everyone else doesn't want to "screw" the average people while the sharp folks are the one getting hosed.

Chief,
I hear what you are saying and understand your concern. However I think that is some very bold talk from a bunch of chiefs who benefited from that very inflated system they are now saying is a problem. That’s the same kind B.S logic that says. I never had more than a CCAF to get Chief but now I think everybody should have a Masters. Who Does that? In the Army they just call those guys badge protectors, but in the AF I don’t know what the hell we call them. Maybe Hypocrites?? What is up with all these E9 haters that are biting the very hand of the systems that made them E9`s in the first place.

Your Buddy

Brewhound
07-09-2013, 04:57 PM
Too many people inflate ratings on their people because "everyone else is too." With this mentality, honest ratings on sub-par ratees will never be given. It is impossible to expect EVERYONE ELSE to start giving honest ratings at the same time. With everyone waiting on everyone else to act, change will never happen.

Also, if you think you're helping your average SSgt by giving him 5s (when he should be a 4), why not think about the impact to the shops he'll one day be put in charge of? All you are doing is screwing everyone else by pushing this guy up to a rank where he'll suck as a supervisor and screw everyone else threw his ineptitude.

I'm convinced the EPR inflation will go away when INDIVIDUAL supervisors start acting like leaders instead of worrying about hurting feelings. It's not rocket science. Use feedbacks to communicate duty performance and recommended re-vectoring actions. At the end of the day, if the ratee still falls short, then the 3 or 4 EPR will not be a surprise.

I think you are talking out the wrong hole or both sides of your mouth. As a (former Officer) you should not be spouting off about enlisted issues. This, from a guy that has to completely suck up to his boss and sell everybody under his command down the river for the next promotion. All OPRS are inflated. You guys wouldn`t know the first thing about generating a real tangible result. You are coddled from day one until your royal exit from the force. I would rather you just say thank you for my retirement and leave it at that. Otherwise you are out of your lane and have no room to talk about inflation.

Class5Kayaker
07-09-2013, 05:18 PM
I think you are talking out the wrong hole or both sides of your mouth. As a (former Officer) you should not be spouting off about enlisted issues. This, from a guy that has to completely suck up to his boss and sell everybody under his command down the river for the next promotion. All OPRS are inflated. You guys wouldn`t know the first thing about generating a real tangible result. You are coddled from day one until your royal exit from the force. I would rather you just say thank you for my retirement and leave it at that. Otherwise you are out of your lane and have no room to talk about inflation.

LMAO! I read this and imagined it with this guy saying it:

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/584/762/few-good-men-jack-nicholson_480_poster_original_display_image.jpg?13 21835849

Not sure if that was your intention, but the way you phrased it fits almost perfectly.

Oh, and in FLAPS defense, I think he was prior-enlisted and don't officers also write EPRs on the folks they supervise or sign as the rater's rater? (rhetorical question) So I wouldn't say this is an "enlisted only" issue.

CrustySMSgt
07-09-2013, 05:47 PM
Chief,
I hear what you are saying and understand your concern. However I think that is some very bold talk from a bunch of chiefs who benefited from that very inflated system they are now saying is a problem. That’s the same kind B.S logic that says. I never had more than a CCAF to get Chief but now I think everybody should have a Masters. Who Does that? In the Army they just call those guys badge protectors, but in the AF I don’t know what the hell we call them. Maybe Hypocrites?? What is up with all these E9 haters that are biting the very hand of the systems that made them E9`s in the first place.

Your Buddy

Only answer I have is this logic is the same as the "everyone else is doing it so I am too" logic; we can all rationalize the reasons we ignore the problem or we can do something about it. But Chiefs can't win. If they agree with leadership, they're yes-men E9s. If they make a stand, they're following a personal agenda. If they try and make things better, they've drank too much koolaid. If they sit back and do nothing, they're entitled pricks.

Anyone that has been around long enough has seen some very poor examples wearing E9 chevrons. Chances are that person was a DB their entire career but no one held them accountable and they worked the system all the way up to E9. At numerous points in their career they could have been rated honestly and not made it all the way. I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect and if my supervisors followed the letter of the law I probably wouldn't be where I am today. So what should I do, not do my part to make thigns better for fear of being called a hypocrite? Sorry, can't do it.

It is easy to get wrapped up in the BS and to ramble on behind a keyboard... so am I 100% like my "persona" on this forum, no, I suspect none of us are. But I do care about the Air Force, Airmen, and trying to do the right thing. Do I always succeed, no. But I really do enjoy all the banter, discussion, and even the dissenting opinions I get here; while I may not always agree, I try and learn from all of you and use what I've learned in real life.

Brewhound
07-09-2013, 06:03 PM
Only answer I have is this logic is the same as the "everyone else is doing it so I am too" logic; we can all rationalize the reasons we ignore the problem or we can do something about it. But Chiefs can't win. If they agree with leadership, they're yes-men E9s. If they make a stand, they're following a personal agenda. If they try and make things better, they've drank too much koolaid. If they sit back and do nothing, they're entitled pricks.

Anyone that has been around long enough has seen some very poor examples wearing E9 chevrons. Chances are that person was a DB their entire career but no one held them accountable and they worked the system all the way up to E9. At numerous points in their career they could have been rated honestly and not made it all the way. I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect and if my supervisors followed the letter of the law I probably wouldn't be where I am today. So what should I do, not do my part to make thigns better for fear of being called a hypocrite? Sorry, can't do it.

It is easy to get wrapped up in the BS and to ramble on behind a keyboard... so am I 100% like my "persona" on this forum, no, I suspect none of us are. But I do care about the Air Force, Airmen, and trying to do the right thing. Do I always succeed, no. But I really do enjoy all the banter, discussion, and even the dissenting opinions I get here; while I may not always agree, I try and learn from all of you and use what I've learned in real life.

Chief,

I believe that is the best answer I have ever heard to the question. Maybe it is the only answer. I guess we all have to try to do the best with what we are given in this structure; we call the "System". I think I for one have been disenchanted for a lot of years with the constant change process that never seems to change anything at all. It certainly doesn’t make my job easier. I have to work with the “little people” every day and make hard choices as a result of the 40,000ft decision. I see a lot of the injustices done in the name of integrity and fairness. I just try to think about what I am going to do to someone career for the next five years when I mark them down. We all know when we do that it isn`t something easily recovered from. You can’t get a DEC at that base, you can’t get a Special Duty and lord knows that will follow you for a while, even more so in this new age of draw down that we are facing. I just hope that whatever the hell those guys up at the top of the mountain are planning, they at least take full measure of consideration to think about the impact it is going to have below. I just for one moment want them to be the leaders they always wanted to have, instead of the guys that were just trying to get their next job or promotion.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-10-2013, 02:31 AM
I think you are talking out the wrong hole or both sides of your mouth. As a (former Officer) you should not be spouting off about enlisted issues. This, from a guy that has to completely suck up to his boss and sell everybody under his command down the river for the next promotion. All OPRS are inflated. You guys wouldn`t know the first thing about generating a real tangible result. You are coddled from day one until your royal exit from the force. I would rather you just say thank you for my retirement and leave it at that. Otherwise you are out of your lane and have no room to talk about inflation.

Are you always a dick, or just to those you don't know online? As for enlisted issues, after 10 years crewing jets and another 13 years supervising enlisted in mx I think I'm very much qualified to speak about enlisted issues. Now go Eff yourself.

UH1FE
07-10-2013, 02:44 AM
If anything FLAPS is one of the best people to speak about enlisted issues. He has seen both sides of the coin.

SgtS
07-10-2013, 08:04 AM
EPRs is a really sticky one. Always has been, always will.

The bottom line for me is that I rate as honestly as I can. If you don't like the rating I judge warranted, you are certainly free to non-concur and do the extra work required.

If I don't agree with your rating and if I can't convince you to see my point, you better believe that I am going to exercise my ability to non-concur with your rating. But just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm going to hold it against you in your own EPR ... that's some bush league shit.

One supervisor making a stand in the name of preserving the integrity of the system and giving an average troop an average rating DOES make a difference. That is an average troop who isn't getting marked up as something he or she isn't. In the long term it might even mean someone who isn't deserving of a promotion doesn't get one. What a concept.

Whether my leadership likes my position or not doesn't really bother me either. I've worked and scraped my way to what was my initial career goal all along - achievement unlocked. Promote me or don't promote me anymore, it won't hurt me. As long as I keep passing PT tests and don't do anything illegal, they can't demote me either. But I'll be DAMNED if I am going to sign my name to something I would be ashamed of later.

CrustySMSgt
07-10-2013, 02:28 PM
EPRs is a really sticky one. Always has been, always will.

The bottom line for me is that I rate as honestly as I can. If you don't like the rating I judge warranted, you are certainly free to non-concur and do the extra work required.

If I don't agree with your rating and if I can't convince you to see my point, you better believe that I am going to exercise my ability to non-concur with your rating. But just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm going to hold it against you in your own EPR ... that's some bush league shit.

One supervisor making a stand in the name of preserving the integrity of the system and giving an average troop an average rating DOES make a difference. That is an average troop who isn't getting marked up as something he or she isn't. In the long term it might even mean someone who isn't deserving of a promotion doesn't get one. What a concept.

Whether my leadership likes my position or not doesn't really bother me either. I've worked and scraped my way to what was my initial career goal all along - achievement unlocked. Promote me or don't promote me anymore, it won't hurt me. As long as I keep passing PT tests and don't do anything illegal, they can't demote me either. But I'll be DAMNED if I am going to sign my name to something I would be ashamed of later.

Amen!

On the "holding it against them" angle, I agree and disagree... if they've done their part as a supervisor and we're just having a difference of opinion, I can see your point. But if they are pushing a firewall 5 on a slacking dufflebag and don't see how that is wrong, then I would have to questions their ability to supervise and ensure I include that feedback in their feedback, to let them know they need to up their standards or face being rated for not being able to be an effective supervisor.


Chief,

I believe that is the best answer I have ever heard to the question. Maybe it is the only answer. I guess we all have to try to do the best with what we are given in this structure; we call the "System". I think I for one have been disenchanted for a lot of years with the constant change process that never seems to change anything at all. It certainly doesn’t make my job easier. I have to work with the “little people” every day and make hard choices as a result of the 40,000ft decision. I see a lot of the injustices done in the name of integrity and fairness. I just try to think about what I am going to do to someone career for the next five years when I mark them down. We all know when we do that it isn`t something easily recovered from. You can’t get a DEC at that base, you can’t get a Special Duty and lord knows that will follow you for a while, even more so in this new age of draw down that we are facing. I just hope that whatever the hell those guys up at the top of the mountain are planning, they at least take full measure of consideration to think about the impact it is going to have below. I just for one moment want them to be the leaders they always wanted to have, instead of the guys that were just trying to get their next job or promotion.

Thanks for the constructive diologue. I know "injustice" is a matter of perspective and someone who is held accountable while others aren't might see it as them getting screwed... but if their supervisor has done the right thing and set them up for success and they failed to walk the walk, then they've "screwed" themselves. And in the end, do you want average people getting decs, special duties, and getting promoted? A markdown on an EPR is one element of WAPS. Give them a 4 and the've got to study a little harder with it on top. If the clue light comes on and they earn a 5 the next year, then you've done your job and the weight of that 4 will diminish over time; if they don't get a clue and earn another 4, then they've proven you right and are getting the rating they deserve.

No system is going to be perfect, especially when it involves having to look someone in the eyes and tell them they don't measure up. But if you've done your job over the rating period, it shouldn't be a surprise.

raustin0017
07-10-2013, 03:04 PM
My 2-cents... Inflation is a supervisor problem. Plain and simple. Supervisors must rate each ratee against the standards already defined on the EPR. The 'group-think' mentality "if I mark-down my guy according to his performance and everybody else does not follow...I'm penalizing my guy"...is the reason for the inflation in the first place. Raters have to keep in mind that it is the members responsibility to meet or exceed the standards. Raters are not penalizing ratees...ratees are the ones who penalize themselves.

Checks and balances: Every Sq Supt needs to have eyes on each EPR. Time consuming...Yes...but very important step to make sure the over inflation within the system stops at their level.

SNCO EPRs: I reviewed every SNCO EPR while serving at Altus. Did not matter if the member was Sr Rater endorsed. I wanted/needed to see every EPR on the SNCO Team. Time consuming...Yes...but a needed step in the process.

CMSAF Roy got it right, 'the EPR system is not broken...the over inflation problem is a supervisor/Sq leadership problem." CMSAF Cody is reviewing the system...but I don't see him making a radical change to the current system.

DWWSWWD
07-10-2013, 03:41 PM
SNCO EPRs: I reviewed every SNCO EPR while serving at Altus. Did not matter if the member was Sr Rater endorsed. I wanted/needed to see every EPR on the SNCO Team. Time consuming...Yes...but a needed step in the process.

What value did you provide in reviewing a non-SRE SNCO EPR? I'm pretty sure that the boss and I would not send EPRs to the CCM for review. I see this as the CCM being out of his lane and undermining my position as a sq or gp Chief.

20+Years
07-10-2013, 03:52 PM
I think EPR inflation is a CCM issue. If they would hold the Gp/Sq Chiefs accountable and quit letting everyone get 5's, the the Gp/Sqs would have to quit letting SNCOs and supervisors slide. (example: Hey FSS Chief, what percentage of your Sq got 5s this year? Hmmmmm, that high huh. I'm not sure how to handle your strats since you have inflated ratings...) The example even shows they don't have to see every EPR to get a handle on things.

We gotta quit letting CCMs pass the buck. Chief Roy gave direction they should have enforced, they haven't. Failboat.

DWWSWWD
07-10-2013, 04:21 PM
I think EPR inflation is a CCM issue. If they would hold the Gp/Sq Chiefs accountable and quit letting everyone get 5's, the the Gp/Sqs would have to quit letting SNCOs and supervisors slide. (example: Hey FSS Chief, what percentage of your Sq got 5s this year? Hmmmmm, that high huh. I'm not sure how to handle your strats since you have inflated ratings...) The example even shows they don't have to see every EPR to get a handle on things.
This lends itself to quotas. I don't need to be justifying ratings to a CCM and neither would a Commander. Ultimately, it's the Commander's rating and the Commander's metrics, from average ratings to on-time stats, for which he is accountable to the Wing CC. If a CCM wants to roll over to MPF and start pulling records, he can knock himself out but I am not rolling him into my approval chain. He has no business there unless he is advising the Wing CC on SRE or strat. This is part of the reason that CCMs lose credibility with Chiefs and Commanders. It's making the job a joke and that's why good Chiefs don't want to do it, in some cases.

raustin0017
07-10-2013, 05:07 PM
Let me explain my view on this subject again. I happen to believe when supervisors hold their people accountable...that is the right thing to do. Some CCs...defiantly not all would question markdowns. If a supervisor has the ammo to explain his/her marks on an EPR (solid feedback, MFR, LOCs, etc...) then they have something to stand on. What normally happens is an EPR gets to the CC with markdowns and let's say an overall 4 rating. When reviewed by the CC, he/she should be able to get info from said supervisor about that Airmen. In many cases they don't have the ammo to explain?

Not all Sq/CCs approved of Wg review. But it was the Wg/CC policy...not an option.

Why would a Cmd Chief want to review all SNCO EPRs, not just the ones going up for Sr Rater endorsement? For one...it is a great tool to really get to know what those SNCOs are bringing to the mission. Yes, I knew most of them by their first names and where they worked, but it is impossible to know details for over 130 men/women...at least it was for me. I also used this review to catch mistakes. Not typos...I'm talking about mistakes that were overlooked concerning eligibility for Sr Rater endorsement. Many times...a new MSgt EPR would show up and for some reason or another it would close out at the Sq level? I would then contact the Gp Chief and ask why? Most times...they did not know. Then I would call the Sq CC and ask if it was their intent to close out at Sq and did they know the member could get Sr Rater endorsement. There are many new Sq/CCs out there and it is up to us to provide input when needed. Altus is a small base. Many Sq do not have a Chief. The Gp Chiefs do not catch everything. I did not catch everything...but at least I tried.

Staying out of "my lane"...I also offered one-on-one record reviews for all SNCOs. Why? Because I was the only Chief on base who had actually sat on a promotion board. Did this also piss off Gp/Sq CCs? Don't think so...might have...but I really did not care one way or another. About 3/4 of them took up my offer. My only focus was to attempt to help the Enlisted Team and provide advice for those CCs/officers who asked.

Happily retired for 1 yr now. But....I can see the AF needs my help. Each of you please contact your Representative and demand I be let back in!

20+Years
07-10-2013, 05:10 PM
I think EPR inflation is a CCM issue. If they would hold the Gp/Sq Chiefs accountable and quit letting everyone get 5's, the the Gp/Sqs would have to quit letting SNCOs and supervisors slide. (example: Hey FSS Chief, what percentage of your Sq got 5s this year? Hmmmmm, that high huh. I'm not sure how to handle your strats since you have inflated ratings...) The example even shows they don't have to see every EPR to get a handle on things.

We gotta quit letting CCMs pass the buck. Chief Roy gave direction they should have enforced, they haven't. Failboat.



Bruwin - I hope I made you proud with that one. :fish2 :fish

SgtS
07-10-2013, 05:24 PM
On the "holding it against them" angle, I agree and disagree... if they've done their part as a supervisor and we're just having a difference of opinion, I can see your point. But if they are pushing a firewall 5 on a slacking dufflebag and don't see how that is wrong, then I would have to questions their ability to supervise and ensure I include that feedback in their feedback, to let them know they need to up their standards or face being rated for not being able to be an effective supervisor.


I was leaning more towards the unlawful command influence angle ... "Play ball with me in this EPR or I'm going to screw you on yours". Sadly I have seen that tale too many times from "leadership" (and I am ashamed to admit I played ball on an EPR when I was a young SSgt). But you are right on the "if a troop is so bent on a firewall 5 and the troop clearly isn't one then I believe that calls your judgement into serious question" as well.


Earth to chief. Big picture, commanders are requiring
Firefall 5s for decs, address that, or anything that's
Not easy to lay at enlisted feet. Want sra btz, step, special
Duty, etc...Better have firewall fives.



Some of this is spot on. Especially the decoration issue. Some fights I have won, some fights I have lost, but I approach it as this:

Troop has nothing by 5s (not just firewalls, but all 5s) for their entire tenure at duty assignment, then I write a grade specific PCS decoration for them (NCO= Comm)

Troop has 4s, then I write them one down (NCO=Achievement).

If you are going to enforce that a 4 and 5 EPRS represent your Above Average and Among the Best performers, then BOTH 4s and 5s need to be recognized for that good work.

DWWSWWD
07-10-2013, 05:31 PM
Bruwin - I hope I made you proud with that one. :fish2 :fish It didn't sound like you but you got me anyway. Obviously a passionate issue for me. Seen too many CCMs that think the Chiefs and in some cases sq Commanders on base work for them. They shitcan the opportunity to use their powers for good.

20+Years
07-10-2013, 07:07 PM
It didn't sound like you but you got me anyway. Obviously a passionate issue for me. Seen too many CCMs that think the Chiefs and in some cases sq Commanders on base work for them. They shitcan the opportunity to use their powers for good.

Its all good. The issue bugs me too, but I doubt I'll se a fix in my time. The decoration comments are spot on. How dare we give a decoration to someone with three 4s, but they were above average!

Class5Kayaker
07-10-2013, 07:28 PM
Let me explain my view on this subject again. I happen to believe when supervisors hold their people accountable...that is the right thing to do. Some CCs...defiantly not all would question markdowns. If a supervisor has the ammo to explain his/her marks on an EPR (solid feedback, MFR, LOCs, etc...) then they have something to stand on. What normally happens is an EPR gets to the CC with markdowns and let's say an overall 4 rating. When reviewed by the CC, he/she should be able to get info from said supervisor about that Airmen. In many cases they don't have the ammo to explain?

This is a perfect example of why the system is broken!!! A supervisor shouldn't need "ammo" (MFR, LOC, etc.) to give someone an overall 4 rating. A 4 rating is supposed to be "Above Average." A 5 rating is suposedly "Truly Among The Best." A 5 EPR should be the EPR that a supervisor needs to justify if anything (quarterly awards, outstanding CDC EOC scores, etc.), but your statement demostrates perfectly why the system is broken Chief.

SgtS
07-10-2013, 08:25 PM
This is a perfect example of why the system is broken!!! A supervisor shouldn't need "ammo" (MFR, LOC, etc.) to give someone an overall 4 rating. A 4 rating is supposed to be "Above Average." A 5 rating is suposedly "Truly Among The Best." A 5 EPR should be the EPR that a supervisor needs to justify if anything (quarterly awards, outstanding CDC EOC scores, etc.), but your statement demostrates perfectly why the system is broken Chief.

Spot on.

raustin0017 you are dead wrong on this issue.

The mentality should NOT be justify markdowns on an EPR that is less than a firewall 5. It isn't supposed to be everyone is a 5 until they prove they aren't. That's what's wrong with the system.

The mentality HAS to be that everyone is a 3 until they set themselves apart. The justification needed by supervisors should be justification to support the mark UPs from a 3 and to demonstrate why their troops rate as being marked Above Average or Among the Best.

Anything else is a compromise to the integrity of the system.

raustin0017
07-10-2013, 08:26 PM
Spot on.

raustin0017 you are dead wrong on this issue.

The mentality should NOT be justify markdowns on an EPR that is less than a firewall 5. It isn't supposed to be everyone is a 5 until they prove they aren't. That's what's wrong with the system.

The mentality HAS to be that everyone is a 3 until they set themselves apart. The justification needed by supervisors should be justification to support the mark UPs from a 3 and to demonstrate why their troops rate as being marked Above Average or Among the Best.

Anything else is a compromise to the integrity of the system.

That would be a perfect world....and we don't live in that one.

raustin0017
07-10-2013, 08:26 PM
Spot on.

raustin0017 you are dead wrong on this issue.

The mentality should NOT be justify markdowns on an EPR that is less than a firewall 5. It isn't supposed to be everyone is a 5 until they prove they aren't. That's what's wrong with the system.

The mentality HAS to be that everyone is a 3 until they set themselves apart. The justification needed by supervisors should be justification to support the mark UPs from a 3 and to demonstrate why their troops rate as being marked Above Average or Among the Best.

Anything else is a compromise to the integrity of the system.

That would be a perfect world....and we don't live in that one.

raustin0017
07-10-2013, 08:27 PM
Let's say I'm a Sq Supt and reviewing all EPRs...like I should be doing. The inflated system is a truth. When an EPR comes across the desk I may or may not know of the performance of the member. Let's say the ERP has three/four markdowns and is scored an overall 4. Is that normal? Not in todays AF. Should it be the norm? Yes...but the truth is different. When I would see the example EPR...I would expect to know about the said Airmen or have info from the supervisor explaining to me what action has been taken if any.

Just trying to talk about todays AF...not what the AF should look like. We all understand the system needs to be fixed...but I would be very surprised if AF leadership takes any action on the EPR system.

SgtS
07-10-2013, 08:38 PM
That would be a perfect world....and we don't live in that one.

No, it's called complying with the AFI, preserving the integrity of the system, holding your troops accountable to the same and calling out "leadership" for passing the buck.

raustin0017
07-10-2013, 08:48 PM
Real world AF...not the one we need. Close to 15,000 MSgt records were scored this year for promotion to SMSgt. Each record has 10-yrs of info. Simple math puts that at 150,000 EPRs...give or take a few. Over 98% of those 150,000 EPRs were overall 5s. Many had markdowns...but still rated an overall 5. This hold true for each rank. The current system is broken...and needs attention. Everyone agrees with that fact.

Tell you what....take the last 2 or 3 of your EPRs you signed and post them on this forum . I might be wrong...but I would bet they are overall 5s if not all Firewalls. You signed them...did you not fight for your 4?

20+Years
07-10-2013, 08:59 PM
That would be a perfect world....and we don't live in that one.

And we won't with that attitude Chief. We have changed many cultures in the AF of the past; segregation, FWA, sexual orientation, PT. No change is perfect, but we survive as a force, and we can do what we put our minds to (maybe you quit believing that in the last year). You are saying we can't change a culture of EPRs? These guys are on the right solution, but it will take CC/Chief buy-in to work. Who ASKS us to justify the ratings? That is where the problem lies... upper beura.. burac... upper B.S. They are asking for justification in the wrong direction. Straight from a Chief I actually liked, "We take care of people in this Group, no supporting documentation and thier a 5"! That is dead wrong.

20+Years
07-10-2013, 09:06 PM
Real world AF...not the one we need. Close to 15,000 MSgt records were scored this year for promotion to SMSgt. Each record has 10-yrs of info. Simple math puts that at 150,000 EPRs...give or take a few. Over 98% of those 150,000 EPRs were overall 5s. Many had markdowns...but still rated an overall 5. This hold true for each rank. The current system is broken...and needs attention. Everyone agrees with that fact.

Tell you what....take the last 2 or 3 of your EPRs you signed and post them on this forum . I might be wrong...but I would bet they are overall 5s if not all Firewalls. You signed them...did you not fight for your 4?


Lol... funny. I have told people throughout my entire career, I am not a 5. I do a good job and sometimes stand out among my peers. Thats it. I am a 4. If our system wasn't broke, and I knew others like me were getting 4s, I would be as happy as a fat girl in the hostess cupcake factory. I know those who should be 5's. They are pretty easy to spot.

But in this inflated system, fight for a 4? Did you? Or were you the best CCM out there?

20+Years
07-10-2013, 09:14 PM
My GOD! Please keep the focus on that last line Chief Cody.

raustin0017
07-10-2013, 09:17 PM
Lol... funny. I have told people throughout my entire career, I am not a 5. I do a good job and sometimes stand out among my peers. Thats it. I am a 4. If our system wasn't broke, and I knew others like me were getting 4s, I would be as happy as a fat girl in the hostess cupcake factory. I know those who should be 5's. They are pretty easy to spot.

But in this inflated system, fight for a 4? Did you? Or were you the best CCM out there?

I was a solid 4 on a good day. WAS nowhere close to the best CCM out there. Never claimed to be. Just tried to make a positive impact for the enlisted Team and left it better than I found it.

20+Years
07-10-2013, 09:25 PM
I was a solid 4 on a good day. WAS nowhere close to the best CCM out there. Never claimed to be. Just tried to make a positive impact for the enlisted Team and left it better than I found it.

We finally have something in common. :ponder:

SgtS
07-11-2013, 05:26 AM
Tell you what....take the last 2 or 3 of your EPRs you signed and post them on this forum . I might be wrong...but I would bet they are overall 5s if not all Firewalls. You signed them...did you not fight for your 4?

Red herring. The onus of responsibility is ALWAYS on the rater to preserve the integrity of the system, not the ratee. You are now trying to obfuscate the issue.


Lol... funny. I have told people throughout my entire career, I am not a 5. I do a good job and sometimes stand out among my peers. Thats it. I am a 4. If our system wasn't broke, and I knew others like me were getting 4s, I would be as happy as a fat girl in the hostess cupcake factory. I know those who should be 5's. They are pretty easy to spot.

But in this inflated system, fight for a 4? Did you? Or were you the best CCM out there?

Sounds about right to me as well.

CrustySMSgt
07-11-2013, 11:13 AM
Earth to chief. Big picture, commanders are requiring
Firefall 5s for decs, address that, or anything that's
Not easy to lay at enlisted feet. Want sra btz, step, special
Duty, etc...Better have firewall fives.


Not often I agree with you, but you nailed this one. When we start looking at anything above a 3 as a MARK UP, this will be an uphill battle. Too often I've seen a supervisor do the right thing, only to be bombarded with questions and coerced to changed an EARNED rating.


Let me explain my view on this subject again. I happen to believe when supervisors hold their people accountable...that is the right thing to do. Some CCs...defiantly not all would question markdowns. If a supervisor has the ammo to explain his/her marks on an EPR (solid feedback, MFR, LOCs, etc...) then they have something to stand on. What normally happens is an EPR gets to the CC with markdowns and let's say an overall 4 rating. When reviewed by the CC, he/she should be able to get info from said supervisor about that Airmen. In many cases they don't have the ammo to explain?



Sorry, but you can't have it both ways! You can't tell people they should be doing the right thing and then kick them in the sack for doing it. Why should I have to justify an above average rating?!? Other than a feedback, which should reflect guidance given over the reporting period, which may or may not show "4" ratings based on the supervisor's final determination on the member's ability to meet standards. I'll agree 100% the rating shouldn't be a surprise, but the amount of grief a supervisor who tries to do the right thing has to go through is a major part of the problem. A 4 should fly through without question.

And you've been around long enough to know that "MFRs" aren't worth the paper their written on.


I remember around 03, our comm sq leaders/commander were not happy, our sq was losing
All qrtly awards and annuals, due to us having markdowns. Direction was we need to give
firewalls, when possible.



HUH?!? WTF do EPR ratings have to do with awards?!? I have NEVER been on a quarterly or annual board that looked at EPRs, and I've been on a whole lot of boards!


That would be a perfect world....and we don't live in that one.

Do I ever think we'll get to where a 3 is the norm, no... but do I think we should allow supervisors to do their best to make the tough calls and not question them on above average ratings? Absolutely.


Let's say I'm a Sq Supt and reviewing all EPRs...like I should be doing. The inflated system is a truth. When an EPR comes across the desk I may or may not know of the performance of the member. Let's say the ERP has three/four markdowns and is scored an overall 4. Is that normal? Not in todays AF. Should it be the norm? Yes...but the truth is different. When I would see the example EPR...I would expect to know about the said Airmen or have info from the supervisor explaining to me what action has been taken if any.

Just trying to talk about todays AF...not what the AF should look like. We all understand the system needs to be fixed...but I would be very surprised if AF leadership takes any action on the EPR system.

And with this mentality it will never change. Supervisors have little enough time to do all they've got to do... so when it comes to having to spend hours having explain to the SQ Supt, CC, 1st Sgt, Group Chief, Group Chiefs secretary, the admin troop in the front office, the Group CC, the CCM, the CC why they gave a few less than perfect ratings and an overall 4 or just saying "screw it" and going with the flow, we force our people to go with the flow.

If we micromanage our supervisors we get supervisors who need to ask permission to think, or even worse, tehy'll just assume they know what poor decision we're going to drive them to and make it themselves, just to take the path of least resistance.

DWWSWWD
07-11-2013, 02:39 PM
One of the most important things we do should be communicating with our folks and providing feedback. A supervisor should initially provide the Airman with a roadmap to a firewall. e.g. Rocking the self-improvement block means 6 credit hours toward CCAF. It means a professional certification in your career field and teaching one block of NCOPD. Whatever that is to you as a supervisor considering your ops tempo and culture. If we can agree that you should provide an Airman with that then we should be able to agree that you should be able to tell me in one sentence where that Airman missed the mark. Usually, if I see a 4 for someone, I know the person and understand why without asking the question. Occaisionally, it's someone trying to change the world, read fix the EPR system, from the bottom up. I simply ask the question if I don't already know the answer. You'd want me to do it for you. To someone else's point for which he flamed his Chief, I agree with his Chief. If you can't tell me why your guy is a 4, then I think he's a 5.

Juggs
07-11-2013, 02:49 PM
Also, I had a flight commander go toe to toe with our group Chief over this.

Our Capts rationale was, why should he sacrifice his guys when there are shitbags getting fives and his guys clearly exceed those clowns?

tiredretiredE7
07-11-2013, 02:51 PM
No, it's called complying with the AFI, preserving the integrity of the system, holding your troops accountable to the same and calling out "leadership" for passing the buck.

This is why you need to be a Chief. I "screwed" many of my subordinates over for the 3 and 4 ratings they "earned". I always included the LOCs and LORs in the routing folder and was rarely asked a question. I did have a troop who "earned" a 2 and tried to fight the 418 for non-concurrence on re-enlistment. The troop could not be promoted to SrA as long as the non-concurrence for re-enlistment 418 existed. I would say I held all of my troops accountable but they saw my actions as "screwing" them due to other supervisors giving their troops firewall 5s.

DWWSWWD
07-11-2013, 02:57 PM
Also, I had a flight commander go toe to toe with our group Chief over this.

Our Capts rationale was, why should he sacrifice his guys when there are shitbags getting fives and his guys clearly exceed those clowns?

This is why you can't fix the EPR system in one shop, section, squadron or Wing. This is why change doesn't start at the bottom.

Juggs
07-11-2013, 03:00 PM
This is why you can't fix the EPR system in one shop, section, squadron or Wing. This is why change doesn't start at the bottom.

Exactly, surpervisors are looking out for their guys by rating them correctly in my opinion. You shouldnt have to justify a 4, heck you shouldnt need to justify a 3, but some sups and CCs are making folks do that. They also dont like it when you quote AFIs and are right when arguing against them.

Juggs
07-11-2013, 03:05 PM
They have to be justified because they can currently be career ending.

Yet they're exceeding or meeting the standard. Go figure.

Class5Kayaker
07-11-2013, 07:39 PM
Not sure, but do officers have 1-5 opr?
Do they use same form for Lt-Col?
Are there opr referrals?
Are oprs meets or does not meet?
Are oprs basis for promotion?

Just looking for correlations...

Just one form for OPRs now (there used to be two different ones, but they changed it the same time they came out with the new EPR in 2007). It's the AF Form 707, Lt thru Col. Nothing for above Colonel.

There's just one "Meets Standards" or "Does Not Meet Standards" section right after the 4 lines for Job Description and that's it for the whole form. No 1-5 ratings. If you select "Does Not Meet Standards", it's considered a referral. Also, when someone does not meet standrads, that's when the reverse of the form is used (the only thing else on the reverse is to spell out acronyms in a remarks section). The back of the form has seven categories broken down for the rater to check what categories the ratee does not meet (Job Knowledge, Leadership Skills, Professional Qualities, Organization Skills, Judgement and Decisions, Communication Skills, and Physical Fitness). Then there's some legal jargon about a referral and a section for a further explanation about the specifics for the referral).

Back to the front of the form (to give you more of an idea of how it's structured) The rater has 6 lines to put bullets for "Rater Overall Assessment" and then the Additional Rater has 4 lines. There is also a reviewer section, but the only time comments are put in it (up to 4 lines) is if they do not concur with the ratings or if they want to address referral comments.

And yes, OPRs are a huge thing for promotions. Promotions for ranks O-4 and above (they did it briefly for Captains from 2012-2013) are done via a promotion board. It's similar to the Sr Enlisted Promo Boards. OPRs are used (but usually skimmed just like the Sr Enlisted, top and bottom lines for rater and rater's rater should be the most imporant), as well as decorations and a Promotion Recommendation form which basically captures the best stuff from all the OPRs. This is the "logic" behind not having a number rating associated with OPRs because all officer promotions are done via a board. Promotions up to Captain are a given (just like SrA), but after that your record meets a board.

Chief_KO
07-12-2013, 02:35 AM
Anyone foolish enough to think the OPR is the way to go has never experienced the true Kabuki dance, creative writing tango that is the OPR. Also add to that the PRF and it is now a dance marathon.
Easy fix to EPRs: make each rank close out at the PECD of the next rank, no EPRs for Chiefs, only 1 EPR per year (no CROs). Trust me, honesty will return once all the evals close out at the same time. Funny, but that's how the PRF and civilian evals work....

DWWSWWD
07-12-2013, 03:40 AM
Easy fix to EPRs: make each rank close out at the PECD of the next rank, no EPRs for Chiefs, only 1 EPR per year (no CROs). Trust me, honesty will return once all the evals close out at the same time. Funny, but that's how the PRF and civilian evals work....

Can't believe we're not doing these things, for starters.

PT GOD
07-12-2013, 04:28 AM
I"ve already looked at how i give scores..its simple process..95 - 100 on pt test you get a firewall 5, 90-94 you get a 4, 85-89 you get a 3...below that..i'll have you kicked out before you can blink!!

Chief_KO
07-12-2013, 01:08 PM
Your an opr expert?

They should be part of solution, officers write eprs too and commanders sign them all.

I would say just below expert. WAPS (including APRs/EPRs) has been around 43 years. There was inflation under APRs, at least in the 80's...hence the EPR. Originally no inflation until human nature took over. Bullet writing (originally) was simple and loved by all vice writing the nice flowery sentences. Single line bullets too were originally loved by many as they were simple. Now days too many in leadership positions (from CC down to the SSgt) try to "craft" each bullet to fill white space and sound worthy of presentation to the POTUS. I honestly believe the only way to curtail the human nature is to have all reports close out at the same respective PECD. I have enough faith in the majority of humans that honesty would return to EPRs both in rating and in writing.

And, in case this doesn't work (and it should work the very first time it is implemented), the AF could institute a quota system...with only x% of a unit eligible for a 5, x% for a 4...but I would hope it would never get to that point.

Having seen how much time is spent polishing and staffing PRFs...it is obvious to me that a simple "go/no-go" format is not what it is cracked up to be.

CrustySMSgt
07-12-2013, 01:13 PM
Anyone foolish enough to think the OPR is the way to go has never experienced the true Kabuki dance, creative writing tango that is the OPR. Also add to that the PRF and it is now a dance marathon.
Easy fix to EPRs: make each rank close out at the PECD of the next rank, no EPRs for Chiefs, only 1 EPR per year (no CROs). Trust me, honesty will return once all the evals close out at the same time. Funny, but that's how the PRF and civilian evals work....


Can't believe we're not doing these things, for starters.

Heard about some high-level discussion on this very topic. I hope it goes through.


They have to be justified because they can currently be career ending.

:jester:

Chief_KO
07-12-2013, 01:15 PM
Heard about some high-level discussion on this very topic. I hope it goes through.



:jester:

Hope you don't consider me to be "high level"....far from it....:silly:

imported_DannyJ
07-12-2013, 01:18 PM
Still say we shouldn't be wasting time on EPRs for E4 and below. It's just assinine.

CrustySMSgt
07-12-2013, 01:23 PM
Still say we shouldn't be wasting time on EPRs for E4 and below. It's just assinine.

EPRs I don't have a problem with; wasting time writing more than a 3 bullets to capture career highlights I agree is pointless.

Chief_KO
07-12-2013, 01:28 PM
Still say we shouldn't be wasting time on EPRs for E4 and below. It's just assinine.

I think they serve a purpose and the system is more realistic with the first one at the 20 month point. Same inflation (or worse) exists at that level. With EPR being a WAPS component I can't see them going away, but again if they all close out on the same day...inflation and over "wordsmithing" should naturally self-eradicate.

DWWSWWD
07-12-2013, 02:10 PM
Still say we shouldn't be wasting time on EPRs for E4 and below. It's just assinine.

To me, these are as important as any of them. Certainly as important as mine. This is where the learning happens. THis is where we are building a very short history for CJR and re-enlistment recommendations. Also where we are looking at cross-training and advising Airmen on where they ought to be headed. We should spend time with these folks, evaluating, coaching, mentoring....

fufu
07-12-2013, 03:51 PM
This is why you can't fix the EPR system in one shop, section, squadron or Wing. This is why change doesn't start at the bottom.

AMEN!!!!!

The system is totally screwed. You can't rate a guy less than 5 without excessive amounts of feedback and paperwork. I've found the easiest way to distinguish among the group is to mark people down.

My ideal version of the EPR:
A series of blocks to check on the front [NO BULLETS!!!!]:
- Does ratee perform all assigned duties and tasks in a timely and proficient manner?
- Does ratee maintain uniform, customs/courtesious, and PT standards?
- Does the ratee meet all required training and maintain proficiency?
- ETC
- ETC

--A block for each questions that says: Meets/Does Not Meet
---If does not meet, space for one line bullet [-Member failed to obtain passing PT score]

The back of the form:
- 3 or 4 bullets capturing career highlights (Thanks CrustySMSgt)
--i.e. CCAF, Bachelors, Major award, AF level influence, etc

Sign and date that shit!

CrustySMSgt
07-12-2013, 04:43 PM
AMEN!!!!!

The system is totally screwed. You can't rate a guy less than 5 without excessive amounts of feedback and paperwork. I've found the easiest way to distinguish among the group is to mark people down.

My ideal version of the EPR:
A series of blocks to check on the front [NO BULLETS!!!!]:
- Does ratee perform all assigned duties and tasks in a timely and proficient manner?
- Does ratee maintain uniform, customs/courtesious, and PT standards?
- Does the ratee meet all required training and maintain proficiency?
- ETC
- ETC

--A block for each questions that says: Meets/Does Not Meet
---If does not meet, space for one line bullet [-Member failed to obtain passing PT score]

The back of the form:
- 3 or 4 bullets capturing career highlights (Thanks CrustySMSgt)
--i.e. CCAF, Bachelors, Major award, AF level influence, etc

Sign and date that shit!

I just don't get why people want to take the easy way out and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone talks about performance on the job not counting for anything and other factors having more influence, yet they want to do away with the only way to document job performance and have that documentation influence the individual's promotion chances. Do away with that and you open the door even wider for PT scores, SKT/PDG scores, and TIG/TIS being more important than how a person does their job.

Measure Man
07-12-2013, 05:30 PM
I just don't get why people want to take the easy way out and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone talks about performance on the job not counting for anything and other factors having more influence, yet they want to do away with the only way to document job performance and have that documentation influence the individual's promotion chances. Do away with that and you open the door even wider for PT scores, SKT/PDG scores, and TIG/TIS being more important than how a person does their job.

Exactly. I've been reading these recommendations forever and can't ever figure out how 90% of the people getting "Meets" is better than 90% of the people getting "5".

fufu
07-12-2013, 06:14 PM
I just don't get why people want to take the easy way out and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone talks about performance on the job not counting for anything and other factors having more influence, yet they want to do away with the only way to document job performance and have that documentation influence the individual's promotion chances. Do away with that and you open the door even wider for PT scores, SKT/PDG scores, and TIG/TIS being more important than how a person does their job.

Nowhere did I say I wanted to discount job performance further. I simple wanted to simply the process for all parties. We consume too many man hours writing, reviewing, revising, reviewing, reattacking, final reviewing EPRs. Face the facts, right now you either meet the standard or your don't. All I'm saying is make the form reflect that. Meet / Does not meet.

One thing I forgot (got busy at work) was to mention a block for promote / do not promote / not TIG eligible. If member is do not promote, they don't test and the report would be a referral.

Do I really need to know how many passengers a bus drive dropped off and picked up? no. But did that bus driver do something special? If so, capture it on the back.

imported_DannyJ
07-12-2013, 11:21 PM
To me, these are as important as any of them. Certainly as important as mine. This is where the learning happens. THis is where we are building a very short history for CJR and re-enlistment recommendations. Also where we are looking at cross-training and advising Airmen on where they ought to be headed. We should spend time with these folks, evaluating, coaching, mentoring....

Letters of Recommendations and counseling/feedback would solve all these issues. If the CC isn't talking to an Airman's supervisor before considering denying reenlistment, they aren't work much anyway. I have seen WAAAAAAAAAY too many E4 and below EPRs get kicked back for white space and other stupid shit to think that the time and effort couldn't be better utilized.

BRUWIN
07-13-2013, 12:49 AM
I think the less writing involved the more likely supervisors are going to rate appropriately in the blocks provided. Right now you have to read an EPR to distinguish between the good troops and average. If you couldn't write then the only discriminator the rater has left is the rating blocks. In fact...most boards spend their time distinguishing the true performers by having to read every EPR. Let's simplify it...get rid of the writing and just rate the people accordingly and see if that works. At least for TSGT and below I think it would work. We tried damn near everything else.

raustin0017
07-13-2013, 12:58 AM
Simplifying the process to only allow primary duty performance. Action/Result format...no fluff. Max of 12 lines...one for each month for annual report. All other items are marked go/no-go.

E-1 --- E-8 one a year. E-9 only if member desires to be considered for next level in the chain.

Sound simple...let's do it!

Chief_KO
07-13-2013, 02:00 AM
Wrong. Way less inflation at that level. Inflation gets higher as you go UP
In rank and PEAKS at Chief.

I'll meet you halfway on this one...less inflation at this level, but I used to always see (from the flight level) first EPRs coming up when Johnny struggled with upgrade (took max time, low CDC scores) yet still marked to the far right. I would send those back for a second look.

As a Chief, I only knew of 2-3 Chiefs of the hundred or so I worked with that ever showed the slightest concern about their own EPR. Yes, they were the ones bucking for E10.

Chief_KO
07-13-2013, 02:05 AM
For all those dead set against any writing on an EPR...one question for you to ponder:
What will be your source for data when it comes time to write your civilian resume?

And one more historical nugget to illustrate that we used to have to write a whole lot more. Back in the 80s-90s (can't remember when it stopped) there was a form used for AFAM/AFCM justification. There was even a dotted line to illustrate the cutoff for justification for an AFCM over an AFAM. That was on top of providing the APRs/EPRs.

tiredretiredE7
07-13-2013, 02:06 AM
I'll meet you halfway on this one...less inflation at this level, but I used to always see (from the flight level) first EPRs coming up when Johnny struggled with upgrade (took max time, low CDC scores) yet still marked to the far right. I would send those back for a second look.

As a Chief, I only knew of 2-3 Chiefs of the hundred or so I worked with that ever showed the slightest concern about their own EPR. Yes, they were the ones bucking for E10.

A Raters ratings are not supposed to be changed per AFI. The rater should have been marked down on their EPR in the leadership block. Compliance with the AFI saves everyone time and makes the EPR process more efficient.

tiredretiredE7
07-13-2013, 02:10 AM
For all those dead set against any writing on an EPR...one question for you to ponder:
What will be your source for data when it comes time to write your civilian resume?

And one more historical nugget to illustrate that we used to have to write a whole lot more. Back in the 80s-90s (can't remember when it stopped) there was a form used for AFAM/AFCM justification. There was even a dotted line to illustrate the cutoff for justification for an AFCM over an AFAM. That was on top of providing the APRs/EPRs.

Most civilians do not understand NCOIC much less the military specific lingo on EPRs.

Chief_KO
07-13-2013, 02:12 AM
A Raters ratings are not supposed to be changed per AFI. The rater should have been marked down on their EPR in the leadership block. Compliance with the AFI saves everyone time and makes the EPR process more efficient.

It was a teaching, training, mentoring moment. Only had to do it once per each section. Previously no one batted an eye if the markings were to the far right...I would scrutinize all markings.
Same with white space and "saved the world bullets"...no need to fill the space or write the world's greatest bullet if the performance "met standards". Sent those back too.

Chief_KO
07-13-2013, 02:13 AM
Most civilians do not understand NCOIC much less the military specific lingo on EPRs.

Exactly, but you need source data to write your...wait for it...action; result--impact bullets (or short sentences) in civilian understood language that captures what you accomplished while in uniform.

CrustySMSgt
07-13-2013, 11:42 AM
They have no concern because Chief epr average is 135, probably why cmsaf looking to kill most of them off.

Ohhh the irony when cmsaf Roy said we need to fix it ourselves. Imagine chiefs saying fix
It, when THEIR eprs are the MOST inflated. And Ohhh BTW, who inflated the chief eprs
To an overall 5 avg for all chiefs? WING COMMANDERS!!!

calm down don quiote... as K_O said, 99.9 of Chiefs could give a rats ass about their EPR rating; WE'RE NOT GETTING PROMOTED AGAIN!

KellyinAvon
07-13-2013, 01:13 PM
calm down don quiote... as K_O said, 99.9 of Chiefs could give a rats ass about their EPR rating; WE'RE NOT GETTING PROMOTED AGAIN!

I dunno Crusty, there are the ones going for E-10.:biggrin

Chief_KO
07-13-2013, 01:25 PM
What about 1 epr at end of each tour?

I don't think that is realistic. Never heard of any company, organization, corporation that doesn't have some sort of annual performance review. I do agree with your often repeated point that it is primarily a Commander's responsibility, and that Commander's have the final word since they do sign every single EPR in the unit. As a Chief I only signed a handful, but of course reviewed and commented on all.

I have had Commanders (all) come to me to discuss why I recommended or supported certain verbiage, white space, markings or ratings. And after said discussion I would say the vast majority of the time my position was sustained. Now, with that said if the CC did not come to discuss with me and recommended their own changes...I would never see or know about that.

Chief_KO
07-13-2013, 01:35 PM
Even better, check out these current averages:

2012 E-9 AF EPR AVG 134.92 from 1,981 total testers
2013 E-8 AF EPR AVG 134.22 from 12,834 total testers
2013 E-7 AF EPR AVG 132.82 from 20,528 total testers
2013 E-6 AF EPR AVG 131.51 from 37,608 total testers
2012 E-5 AF EPR AVG 127.78 from 33,060 total testers


To play devil's advocate (pun intended)...one could make the point that as you move upward in any company, employees become much more familiar and accepting to policies and procedures, and are more "vested" into career growth.

Once again...imagine all those E-7 EPRs hitting the wing king (queen) desk at the same time...no more gaming the system by a CRO dance mid stream to move "undesirable" EPRs down the stack (another explanation for the numbers above). Now, there are 50 EPRs all awaiting wing king signature...he/she will truly be able to endorse (and stratify---which I think should go away) only those top 10% or so based upon...wait for it...mission impact. I honestly would see the strong possibility that of those 50 EPRs a number would be sent back by the wing to the group/sq with a post-it note saying "Who is this guy/gal?"

Chief_KO
07-13-2013, 03:05 PM
Two things that can be (and should be eliminated) from EPRs ASAP:
1. Stratification: This only continues the trend (as noted by GF) to award overall 5s (or firewall 5s) by the rating chain knowing that the lack of (or poor stratification) by group/wing could impact member's board score. Instead of making the tough call at the unit level...kick the can up the chain and make the evil gp or wg be the bad guy. Not to mention the hundreds of man hours wasted twice a year performing the stratification tango.
2. Recommended promotion statements and/or recommended assignment statements. We killed PME recommendation statements years ago, time to kill promo and assignment statements too. Wasted space and totally useless. Never once heard from AFPC regarding any assignment statement on my EPR or on any from my units'. Same with promo statements...the rating should make the statement...

DWWSWWD
07-13-2013, 04:30 PM
Bullshit. I proved inflation at top, you make excuses for it.

Would you not expect those promoted to the top 1% of our enlisted force, to have pretty good EPRs?

Shadowless
07-13-2013, 05:07 PM
Would not expect those promoted to the top 1% of our enlisted force, to have pretty good EPRs?

Of course, but at the same time are we not supposed to be rated against our peers? Godfather made a good point with those inflation numbers. Change starts at the top, its very hard for someone like myself who is an E5 to take someone serious who benefited from inflation and continues to do so even now. My point is, every rank should be rated against their peers, even those E7 and above. When I see those inflated numbers it makes me realize where the problems really lay, at the top.

TWilliams
07-14-2013, 04:33 PM
Of course, but at the same time are we not supposed to be rated against our peers? Godfather made a good point with those inflation numbers. Change starts at the top, its very hard for someone like myself who is an E5 to take someone serious who benefited from inflation and continues to do so even now. My point is, every rank should be rated against their peers, even those E7 and above. When I see those inflated numbers it makes me realize where the problems really lay, at the top.

Actually we are not supposed to be rated against our peers. We are supposed to be rated against how well we met the standards set forth to us by our supervisors in our feedbacks. That is the whole purpose of the feedback, to let you know what your expected performance is supposed to be during the initial feedback and to let you know how you are not meeting/meeting/exceeding those standards during midterm and other feedback sessions.

This causes some issues when different supervisors set different standards for their troops.

fufu
07-14-2013, 05:09 PM
Would you not expect those promoted to the top 1% of our enlisted force, to have pretty good EPRs?

134.92 is the average EPR score for a E9.

My little base has 21 Chiefs. Over the last 8 years, we've had a couple of Squadrons fail inspections. One even had the Sq/CC canned, I wonder if those "Chiefs" got 5s. It appears so.

If every SSgt, TSgt, and MSgt can't be FW5s, then neither can every E9. There are Chiefs running Squadrons that fail inspections or have high numbers of DUIs / Sexual Assaults. Are those E9s "truly among the best"?

Class5Kayaker
07-15-2013, 05:30 PM
Actually we are not supposed to be rated against our peers. We are supposed to be rated against how well we met the standards set forth to us by our supervisors in our feedbacks. That is the whole purpose of the feedback, to let you know what your expected performance is supposed to be during the initial feedback and to let you know how you are not meeting/meeting/exceeding those standards during midterm and other feedback sessions.

This causes some issues when different supervisors set different standards for their troops.

AFPC guidance differs with your opinion. When the new forms came out, AFPC put out a 55 slide presentation. Here's some quotes from that presentation (underline and bold emphasis placed by me):



Clearly Exceeds

Performs at a higher level than most of their peers, far exceeds standards and expectations, unique performer


When deciding the overall performance rating, evaluators should compare the ratee to their peers in the same grade. While there are many thousands of outstanding and exceptional performers, not every Airman is or should be considered as “Truly Among the Best,” a rating of 5.



Average (3)
Meets standards/expectations
Performs in the median when compared to peers

Above Average (4)
Performs beyond established standards and expectations
Performs at higher level than many of their peers

Truly Among the Best (5)
Performs at a level above their peer group
Elite performer who goes above and beyond

TWilliams
07-15-2013, 06:35 PM
AFPC guidance differs with your opinion. When the new forms came out, AFPC put out a 55 slide presentation. Here's some quotes from that presentation (underline and bold emphasis placed by me):

Who is considered a peer? My supervisor cannot rate me against the performance of anyone else becuase I am his only MSgt ratee. He can't rate me against other MSgts because he does not observe and rate on their performance. His rater, the squadron commander could rate me against the other two MSgts I suppose but if we're all elite performers who go above and beyond then does that automatically make us average since we are performing in the median when compared to our peers?

The only reasonable way to rate someone's performance is to compare it to the standards of performance they were given. Now there are common standards shared across the Air Force and these are spelled out in AFIs, TOs, etc. But the common standards don't cover all aspects of of performance for every person in every job. If you are left comparing peers, then it is like grading on a Bell curve. The best slacker can become the best of the best or if you have a group of high performers, it relegates the top performers to just being average. I don't think that is a good way to do business.

Chief_KO
07-16-2013, 12:07 AM
134.92 is the average EPR score for a E9.

My little base has 21 Chiefs. Over the last 8 years, we've had a couple of Squadrons fail inspections. One even had the Sq/CC canned, I wonder if those "Chiefs" got 5s. It appears so.

If every SSgt, TSgt, and MSgt can't be FW5s, then neither can every E9. There are Chiefs running Squadrons that fail inspections or have high numbers of DUIs / Sexual Assaults. Are those E9s "truly among the best"?

My last two assignments (as sq supt) First Outstanding Rating ever given by DISA, Sq named best in ACC, numerous first in command or first in AF programs. Both units zero DUIs the entire time. Guess my 5 ratings were justified.

Class5Kayaker
07-16-2013, 07:14 PM
Who is considered a peer? My supervisor cannot rate me against the performance of anyone else becuase I am his only MSgt ratee. He can't rate me against other MSgts because he does not observe and rate on their performance. His rater, the squadron commander could rate me against the other two MSgts I suppose but if we're all elite performers who go above and beyond then does that automatically make us average since we are performing in the median when compared to our peers?

The only reasonable way to rate someone's performance is to compare it to the standards of performance they were given. Now there are common standards shared across the Air Force and these are spelled out in AFIs, TOs, etc. But the common standards don't cover all aspects of of performance for every person in every job. If you are left comparing peers, then it is like grading on a Bell curve. The best slacker can become the best of the best or if you have a group of high performers, it relegates the top performers to just being average. I don't think that is a good way to do business.

As the saying goes, "Don't shoot the messenger." I'm just relaying how the system "supposedly" works. If you recall, the old EPR actually had this on the back of the form when describing the ratings 1-5: "Compare this ratee with others of the same grade and AFS." So although your supervisor might only rate on one MSgt (the only one in the unit), he could compare that MSgt to others in the career field (current, or one's he's rated in the past.)

Comparing to standards like you've described above, you could arguably justify 99% of folks getting 5's. I don't think that's the way "they" want the system to be, and "they" envision it being more likea bell curve like you mentioned and I also mentioned HERE (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1596292-CMSAF-Bogus-EPR-Review&p=639520#post639520)

Pullinteeth
07-16-2013, 07:40 PM
Better keep up the inflation because they are placing greater importance on special duties AND require the last 3 EPRs to be 5s to even apply....

TWilliams
07-16-2013, 09:05 PM
As the saying goes, "Don't shoot the messenger." I'm just relaying how the system "supposedly" works. If you recall, the old EPR actually had this on the back of the form when describing the ratings 1-5: "Compare this ratee with others of the same grade and AFS." So although your supervisor might only rate on one MSgt (the only one in the unit), he could compare that MSgt to others in the career field (current, or one's he's rated in the past.)

Comparing to standards like you've described above, you could arguably justify 99% of folks getting 5's. I don't think that's the way "they" want the system to be, and "they" envision it being more likea bell curve like you mentioned and I also mentioned HERE (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1596292-CMSAF-Bogus-EPR-Review&p=639520#post639520)

Okay, you got me. I was taught differently in PME but even the AFI (as of January 2013) even backs you up.

1.6.2.8. Differentiates between ratees with similar performance records; especially when making promotion, stratification, assignment, Developmental Education (DE) and retention recommendations when not prohibited by this AFI or other special program specific guidance.
1.6.2.9. Although some evaluators may not know any other ratee serving in a particular grade and Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), they may rate according to their opinions and impressions of the general level of performance of Air Force personnel in the various grades.

But it also says:

1.6.2.5. Assesses and documents the ratee’s performance, what the ratee did, how well he or she did it, and the ratee’s potential based on that performance, throughout the rating period. The rater differentiates through an evaluation of performance.


So basically anyone can still be rated however the rater wants to based on the rater's opinions and impressions. How do you differentiate between ratees with similar performance records? If they have similar performance, then shouldn't they be rated similarly? If the average level of performance in one AFSC is high, you can justify giving an outstanding performer a 3 or a 4, since everyone else in their AFSC is outstanding as well. I'm sure there are some smaller career fields or special duties made up of higher ranks (1st Sgts) that this would apply to. I personally believe section 1.6.2.9 is rediculous. I can totally hose someone if my opinion of their AFSC is unrealistic.

I think the Air Force should change it so that each category is meets/does not meet and a final promotion recommendation by the rater of either do not promote, promote, immediate promote, with the same for rater's rater. We can keep the bullet spaces as is. The WAPS points can be adjusted to be based off of the promotion recommendation.

TWilliams
07-16-2013, 09:16 PM
Huge difference in what af thinks makes a worker great and
What base level shop thinks makes a worker great.

That is true. AF performance=PME, education, volunteer. Shop performance=doing your job.

TWilliams
07-17-2013, 01:07 AM
Hooker doesn't require education or volunteerism,
Just needs to be good at job.

So you are saying to invest in knee pads if you want to succeed in the AF? Good to know because it is always important to wear the proper PPE on the job!