PDA

View Full Version : The Enlisted Perspective: The Enlisted Evaluation System



grimreaper
04-02-2013, 04:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXqaWI6r4Q

Thoughts? Seemed waaaay too scripted to me. I don't know any people that talk the way these ones did.

Points addressed:

1. EPR Inflation

Response I heard: Same response I heard from Chief Roy. People need to rate their people correctly and so on and so forth. In other words, inflation is here to stay and nothing can be done about it.

2. Feedback

Response I heard: more feedback is better. Nothing new here.

3. Better writers get the goods

Response I heard: basically agreed but didn't say if anything could be done about it. It's been this way since as long as I can remember anyway.

4. Pt scores on EPR

Response...not happening. I think most people agree. PT is a standard, not THE standard.

Not much new out of the Chief to chew on at this point. I hope at some point he would give a bit more specifics about what his ideas are instead of always seeming to talk in generalities.

Does anyone else not hate how much time and effort we spend on writing these things? It's waaay too much IMO. In a time where we need to really start acting like we are going to do less with less, when are we going to get serious about the amount of time we spend writing/re-writing EPRs, decs, 1206s, etc? I think money well spent would be a study of how much time we spend on this administrative stuff in comparison with duties that actually have to do with performing the mission. I would bet that it is near a 50/50 split. That's no bullshit either. Hell, some people here may think that EPR's and the like take up more time than the actual mission.

It does not take the amount of information that fills-out an EPR to describe an individual's job performance (especially when 1/2 of it is over exaggerated BS to begin with). IMO, the EPR could and should be trimmed to the front of 1 page.

CrustySMSgt
04-02-2013, 05:32 AM
Saw a link to it on FB right before I came to work. Can't get to YouTube from work, so I'll have to check it out when I get back to my room.

I really hope they listen to all the feedback that says 20 something lines is WAY too many!!

I did read something in another story that says they may look at some quantifyable blocks to justify ratings. Hate to paint folks in to a corner and force them to check blocks, but given how much luck we've had with the "raters should be doing the right thing" option, it appears we're going to have to go to some sort of black & white discriminators to force people to make the tough calls. Downside to that is, it takes the flexibility out of the ratings. There may be extenuating circumstances as to why someone doesn't do something, but if it is go/no-go criteria, you're stuck.

But we have GOT to get this fixed, because as we get smaller, we've GOT to push the right people forward, keep those who are doing great things right where they are at, and make it clear who's got to go when it is time to start trimming the fat.

grimreaper
04-02-2013, 05:58 AM
I agree with everything you said.

Of course inflation is a problem, but it's seems like it's something we've just learn to live and would rather just bitch about it instead. It would be nice if the amount of time we have spent bitching about it actually went into doing something to fix it. If it takes measures such as you suggested, then so be it.

The issue of time spent writing them is as big of an issue to me as the inflation piece is. I suppose I could get over all the epr-isms and the nonsense you are forced to put up with from base to base if they weren't so ridiculously long.

FLAPS
04-02-2013, 11:13 AM
I suppose I could get over all the epr-isms and the nonsense you are forced to put up with from base to base if they weren't so ridiculously long.

Reminds me of an 0-6 who PCS'd into a base, and in her second week kicked back ALL EPRs/OPRs in the system because she PREFERRED "..." over "--". Unbelievable amount of ass-pain for everyone to pull these back and make the changes, all for something that in the end means absolutely nothing to the mission, or anyone on the face of the earth...except her.

She retired as a 2-star and it now must kill her each day to know that she has ZERO power over anyone.

BOSS302
04-02-2013, 12:33 PM
This was painful to watch simply because it did seem scripted, it did seem fake. I also get the slight sensation that they are all "Bake Sale/Booster Club" commandos who see no issue with taking a big chunk of their duty day to check the "extra curricular blocks" without thought to who is picking up the slack with the real work.

Or I could be generalizing....

Another gripe is this: why is there only one NCO on this "panel"?

JD2780
04-02-2013, 12:55 PM
Dress and appearance is a standard and not the standard yet its on the EPR. I say add the scores. That's one thing that is cu t and dry.

The Cooler
04-02-2013, 01:07 PM
/yawn 10characters

Chief_KO
04-02-2013, 01:08 PM
The current EPR has less lines than the previous form. Each section is marked with the number of lines maximum, not the number of lines required.
Want to fix inflation and excessive creating writing?
Make the closeout date of the EPR equal the respective promotion eligibility cut off date for the next rank. Having all your x-rank EPRs closeout at the same time will eliminate overuse of "5" ratings. The sheer admin volume will force all in the rating chain to KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Eliminate the 120-day EPR. This will eliminate the EPR CRO dance some commanders want to push to "Help Johnny". Everybody gets one EPR per year, no more. Also eliminate ALL stratification statements. An award stands on its own merit (SNCO of the Qtr, etc.), and the ratings of 3 thru 5 are stratifying by nature.

BOSS302
04-02-2013, 01:10 PM
Dress and appearance is a standard and not the standard yet its on the EPR. I say add the scores. That's one thing that is cu t and dry.

Never; the current Enlisted Evaluation System is an ugly baby that is passed from leadership to leadership. Unless the ugly baby dies or someone decides to finally give birth to a prettier, more sensible baby, this is what we're stuck with. In the interim, everyone is stuck changing this ugly baby's diaper.

JD2780
04-02-2013, 01:11 PM
Never; the current Enlisted Evaluation System is an ugly baby that is passed from leadership to leadership. Unless the ugly baby dies or someone decides to finally give birth to a prettier, more sensible baby, this is what we're stuck with. In the interim, everyone is stuck changing this ugly baby's diaper.

True statement. No CMSgt has the cajones no CSAF has the cajones to say I'm doing this so stfu.

FLAPS
04-02-2013, 02:18 PM
The current EPR has less lines than the previous form. Each section is marked with the number of lines maximum, not the number of lines required.
Want to fix inflation and excessive creating writing?
Make the closeout date of the EPR equal the respective promotion eligibility cut off date for the next rank. Having all your x-rank EPRs closeout at the same time will eliminate overuse of "5" ratings. The sheer admin volume will force all in the rating chain to KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Eliminate the 120-day EPR. This will eliminate the EPR CRO dance some commanders want to push to "Help Johnny". Everybody gets one EPR per year, no more. Also eliminate ALL stratification statements. An award stands on its own merit (SNCO of the Qtr, etc.), and the ratings of 3 thru 5 are stratifying by nature.

Under your proposed system, how do you fairly rate/write on someone who PCS's in 1-3 months prior to closeout?

CrustySMSgt
04-02-2013, 02:25 PM
Under your proposed system, how do you fairly rate/write on someone who PCS's in 1-3 months prior to closeout?

The same way the Navy does using a similar system. Someone who's really earning the top ratings will have the bullets to back up their performance and justify their rating. But of course this will be another element that will rely on the losing unit providing an accurate assessment of the guy and the gaining unit trusting the system.

RobotChicken
04-02-2013, 09:35 PM
No colored water on the table??

BRUWIN
04-02-2013, 09:39 PM
Another gripe is this: why is there only one NCO on this "panel"?

Only need one note taker.

Vrake
04-02-2013, 09:43 PM
So wait, then who writes the bullets 1-3 months into the new assignment, the new or old unit? Just trying to understand how we take care of the new guy who was a superstar (or slug) in the old unit.

Flaps,

The detaching unit always writes a close out Eval ending on the transfer date. The gaining unit can choose to write a new one but most do not if it's under 90 days. Over and they have to. Then the member next eval might be up to 15 months. Like was said it gives the gaining unit time to get to know the member.

Vrake
04-02-2013, 09:44 PM
How can I quote something that on the clock(my clock) that is after mine?

Psychic board or bug? You decide.

** re edit the edit time was right. Odd

FLAPS
04-02-2013, 09:58 PM
The same way the Navy does using a similar system. Someone who's really earning the top ratings will have the bullets to back up their performance and justify their rating. But of course this will be another element that will rely on the losing unit providing an accurate assessment of the guy and the gaining unit trusting the system.

So wait, then who writes the bullets 1-3 months into the new assignment, the new or old unit? Just trying to understand how we take care of the new guy who was a superstar (or slug) in the old unit.

imported_DannyJ
04-02-2013, 10:23 PM
Pfft. Eprs. Waste of damn time.

KellyinAvon
04-03-2013, 01:17 AM
Pfft. Eprs. Waste of damn time.

Pfft. New word DannyJ? I like it.

RobotChicken
04-03-2013, 02:18 AM
How can I quote something that on the clock(my clock) that is after mine?

Psychic board or bug? You decide.

** re edit the edit time was right. Odd

Yea, strange things happening, double posts,post and 2 folks post after you with newer times/later,post that say 20+ or 20-, think they got the reps system confused with the posting times...gosh help us if.....

Chief_KO
04-03-2013, 02:46 AM
Under your proposed system, how do you fairly rate/write on someone who PCS's in 1-3 months prior to closeout?

IF the Airman's service met the requirements for a decoration, he/she would receive it supported by the previous EPRs and a LOE for the remaining time. That would be an official, matter of record LOE that would follow the Airman to their new unit and be part of next year's EPR.

imported_DannyJ
04-03-2013, 03:28 AM
Pfft. New word DannyJ? I like it.

It's the attitude of most LTC and above recently. Yes I said LTC and not Lt. Col.. That takes an additional 5 key strokes for no damn reason.

AKNate
04-03-2013, 04:08 AM
Thought I saw a woodchuck in the video. Must be seeing things.

BadBender
04-03-2013, 04:38 AM
I have a SSgt whose EPR is due in July. My boss already wants me to submit an almost finished product to him by next week, where it will sit on the EMS site until it hits the “murder board” sometime in June. Why do they want these things so early? Why waste my time writing decent bullets if the gang of SNCOs are just going to re-write it anyway they want and then (unofficially of course) threaten my rating if I dare change it back to what I originally wrote?

I have a binder with every EPR I’ve received, written and some from older folks. There are 2 and 3 part bullets, various degrees of white space and some with “mark downs” that are still 5B. Looking at that and knowing what they teach at ALS and NCOA, I wonder why there is such a disconnect from what we are taught vs. what upper management expects.

Airborne
04-03-2013, 04:49 AM
I could honestly care less about inflation. Seems to be sort of human nature and a losing battle. Can we please make it one front page and about 5-7 bullets at most and not 20. This is the twitter generation.

CrustySMSgt
04-03-2013, 07:26 AM
So wait, then who writes the bullets 1-3 months into the new assignment, the new or old unit? Just trying to understand how we take care of the new guy who was a superstar (or slug) in the old unit.

The losing unit could write an LOE.

Thanks for the info Vrake; sounds like y'all have a way to mitigate this issue by adding some flexibility to the rating period.

FLAPS
04-03-2013, 10:27 AM
Flaps,

The detaching unit always writes a close out Eval ending on the transfer date. The gaining unit can choose to write a new one but most do not if it's under 90 days. Over and they have to. Then the member next eval might be up to 15 months. Like was said it gives the gaining unit time to get to know the member.

The discussion is concerning the scenario of ONLY writing EPRs for a certain rank at their PCD....meaning everyone at that rank has the same close-out date. Maybe I misunderstood your point?

FLAPS
04-03-2013, 10:35 AM
The losing unit could write an LOE.

Mandatory LOEs would do the trick.

CrustySMSgt
04-03-2013, 11:05 AM
Pay attention to where he speaks of, for example, forcing raters to rank their five Airman in order of performance.

If you know anything about the Navy's EVAL/FITREP system, you know exactly what he's trying to get at. Quotas. Only a certain percentange of those being rated can be a 5's, the next percentage can be 4's, and everyone else will be 3's.

Now, you'll have a whole new set of problems.

I'd rather have the problem of using quotas over trying to figure out which of the 99.9% of 5s are worth a shit.


The discussion is concerning the scenario of ONLY writing EPRs for a certain rank at their PCD....meaning everyone at that rank has the same close-out date. Maybe I misunderstood your point?

His point was the Navy already uses across the board close-outs for each grade, but there is some wiggle room to account for PCSs w/i 90 days of the closeout, allowing the losing unit to write the FITREP and it meeting the requirement for that reporting period. This would alleviate some of the issue with PCSing at the end of the reporting period... still wouldn't help those over 91 days, but you've got to draw the line somewhere.

Rusty Jones
04-03-2013, 11:12 AM
Pay attention to where he speaks of, for example, forcing raters to rank their five Airman in order of performance.

If you know anything about the Navy's EVAL/FITREP system, you know exactly what he's trying to get at. Quotas. Only a certain percentange of those being rated can be a 5's, the next percentage can be 4's, and everyone else will be 3's.

Now, you'll have a whole new set of problems.

CrustySMSgt
04-03-2013, 11:29 AM
Pay attention to where he speaks of, for example, forcing raters to rank their five Airman in order of performance.

If you know anything about the Navy's EVAL/FITREP system, you know exactly what he's trying to get at. Quotas. Only a certain percentange of those being rated can be a 5's, the next percentage can be 4's, and everyone else will be 3's.

Now, you'll have a whole new set of problems.

I'd rather have the problem of using quotas over trying to figure out which of the 99.9% of 5s are worth a shit.


The discussion is concerning the scenario of ONLY writing EPRs for a certain rank at their PCD....meaning everyone at that rank has the same close-out date. Maybe I misunderstood your point?

His point was the Navy already uses across the board close-outs for each grade, but there is some wiggle room to account for PCSs w/i 90 days of the closeout, allowing the losing unit to write the FITREP and it meeting the requirement for that reporting period. This would alleviate some of the issue with PCSing at the end of the reporting period... still wouldn't help those over 91 days, but you've got to draw the line somewhere.

Chief_KO
04-03-2013, 12:21 PM
If memory serves, when the EPR first came out there were "recommended quotas". They were followed for about 2-3 years. Then many commanders (who for the most part have NO understanding of the enlisted promotion system) failed to listen to the advice of their SNCOs. They started pushing the no white space rule and making all bullets sound like Airmen single-handedly saved God and Country. And once one starts...the rest will follow. No one wants to be "That Guy" who held the line on EPR inflation.
If you had 50 SSgts in your unit and all 50 EPRs closed out at the same time, I think it is pretty safe to assume that the rating chain would accurately (within reason) rate those SSgts accurately and fairly. If a formal quota system was put in place (lets say 25% could receive an overall 5) I think it would be pretty darn close (if not even higher) than what the rating chain would determine on their own. If a unit wanted to exceed their quota, perhaps the wing commander would be the approval authority.

But, alas if a formal quota was instituted the AF Times would have a screaming cover "AF Brass says 3/4 of all Airmen are sub-par" or something along those lines. That edition would fly off the commissary/BX shelves.

Regarding long suspenses: In my last 10 years or so on AD, I only recall one Senior Rater who stated that EPRs/OPRs would not be sent for review before their close out. The earliest he wanted them was closeout. He also said that command review would be done in less than 3 days, and any "happy to glad" changes would be made by his staff. And it worked! And as for white space and creative writing, as a Chief I often edited the bullets down to fit the ratings, adding in white space. Always had to explain it to the CC as to why.

JD2780
04-03-2013, 04:30 PM
I'd like to think that someone who has reached command after at least 10 years TIS supervising Enlisted people they would have SOME understanding of the enlisted promotion system...at least in career fields like Mx, SF, etc.

My last unit, most of our O's didn't have a clue about the system. They would get pissed when some of our guys didnt make Tsgt o n their first try.

JD2780
04-03-2013, 04:30 PM
I'd like to think that someone who has reached command after at least 10 years TIS supervising Enlisted people they would have SOME understanding of the enlisted promotion system...at least in career fields like Mx, SF, etc.

My last unit, most of our O's didn't have a clue about the system. They would get pissed when some of our guys didnt make Tsgt o n their first try.

FLAPS
04-03-2013, 04:39 PM
Then many commanders (who for the most part have NO understanding of the enlisted promotion system) failed to listen to the advice of their SNCOs.

I'd like to think that someone who has reached command after at least 10 years TIS supervising Enlisted people they would have SOME understanding of the enlisted promotion system...at least in career fields like Mx, SF, etc.

ubermetroid
04-03-2013, 10:59 PM
Im going to get in line with this. I am actually really amazed how little Os understand the enlisted promotion system.

DWWSWWD
04-04-2013, 01:15 AM
And as for white space and creative writing, as a Chief I often edited the bullets down to fit the ratings, adding in white space. Always had to explain it to the CC as to why. Funny. I just reviewed an EPR the day before yesterday. I am the final close authority. Sgt Highspeed got hold of it and had the rater in his/her office for an hour. After that, Highspeed came to me and let me know that the EPR was really weak. I said, I know. Rater and I already went over it and it was good to go. Highspeed said it was just a few tweaks to make it better. I said, OK but if it comes back looking like ratee walks on water, I'm not signing it. Turns out it did. Promote now!!!!!! and such. We have this innate need to make every report a STEP package. The initial report said exactly what we wanted it to.

Chief_KO
04-04-2013, 01:21 AM
Im going to get in line with this. I am actually really amazed how little Os understand the enlisted promotion system.

Equally scary are the number of enlisted people who think our EPRs should go the way of the OPR's simple meets/does not meets standard. They have no earthly idea that an entirely separate document (PRF) is used for the officer promotions. When you look at our enlisted promotion system objectively, it is as near perfect as any system can be. Heck, it has survived basically the same as designed for over 40 years.

RobotChicken
04-04-2013, 02:00 AM
Equally scary are the number of enlisted people who think our EPRs should go the way of the OPR's simple meets/does not meets standard. They have no earthly idea that an entirely separate document (PRF) is used for the officer promotions. When you look at our enlisted promotion system objectively, it is as near perfect as any system can be. Heck, it has survived basically the same as designed for over 40 years.

:sad But the 'Human Race' has not! :embarrassed

FLAPS
04-04-2013, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=Chief_KO;617019]They have no earthly idea that an entirely separate document (PRF) is used for the officer promotions./QUOTE]

Yep, one with three boxes to check, Do Not Promote, Promote, Definitely Promote (limited to 10% of eligibles). The PRF includes info from ALL OPRs, DECs and Training Reports going back to 2LT. Can't make up new shit to include...

tiredretiredE7
04-04-2013, 11:58 AM
Funny. I just reviewed an EPR the day before yesterday. I am the final close authority. Sgt Highspeed got hold of it and had the rater in his/her office for an hour. After that, Highspeed came to me and let me know that the EPR was really weak. I said, I know. Rater and I already went over it and it was good to go. Highspeed said it was just a few tweaks to make it better. I said, OK but if it comes back looking like ratee walks on water, I'm not signing it. Turns out it did. Promote now!!!!!! and such. We have this innate need to make every report a STEP package. The initial report said exactly what we wanted it to.

I wish I could have worked for you Chief. All of the Chiefs I worked for always added "input" to make the EPR "read" better. Then the O would each make their own changes so the EPR I wrote looked like crypto for Cops. Ofcourse they would all send the EPR back to me each time to make their changes and then get upset when the EPR was late. Most SF units implemented a 4 month lead time prior to closeout to complete the EPR. Most of the 4 months was spent sitting on different desks without any real work being completed on the EPR. So glad I retired.

Chief_KO
04-04-2013, 12:58 PM
Thanks for the compliment tiredretiredE7,
I would estimate that I would "edit down" or call in the rater to do so probably 30% of the time.
Another thing closing out all same rank EPRs at the same time would: Stop bullet sharing.
Easy to recycle the same bullet across multiple reports when they close out at different times. Having the closeout the same, only the one NCO who "led" the activity would get that bullet. The other NCOs would have "performed" the activity. Not everyone can lead everything everytime, but to read an EPR or 1206...one can assumes that no one actually did the work.

Chief_KO
04-04-2013, 12:58 PM
Thanks for the compliment tiredretiredE7,
I would estimate that I would "edit down" or call in the rater to do so probably 30% of the time.
Another thing closing out all same rank EPRs at the same time would: Stop bullet sharing.
Easy to recycle the same bullet across multiple reports when they close out at different times. Having the closeout the same, only the one NCO who "led" the activity would get that bullet. The other NCOs would have "performed" the activity. Not everyone can lead everything everytime, but to read an EPR or 1206...one can assumes that no one actually did the work.

sandsjames
04-04-2013, 02:33 PM
Thanks for the compliment tiredretiredE7,
I would estimate that I would "edit down" or call in the rater to do so probably 30% of the time.
Another thing closing out all same rank EPRs at the same time would: Stop bullet sharing.
Easy to recycle the same bullet across multiple reports when they close out at different times. Having the closeout the same, only the one NCO who "led" the activity would get that bullet. The other NCOs would have "performed" the activity. Not everyone can lead everything everytime, but to read an EPR or 1206...one can assumes that no one actually did the work.

Just curious, and this is not a question meant to be confrontational at all, but the issue here is that there are only so many things to lead in some shops. If I have 4 NCOs working on a job, by default the highest ranking gets the "led". That means the other 3 get the "assisted" or something similar. When I send that bullet up for an NCO, it gets thrown back at me because an NCO shouldn't be assisting anything. What do I do in that situation?

imported_SergeantJack
04-04-2013, 06:18 PM
Reminds me of an 0-6 who PCS'd into a base, and in her second week kicked back ALL EPRs/OPRs in the system because she PREFERRED "..." over "--". Unbelievable amount of ass-pain for everyone to pull these back and make the changes, all for something that in the end means absolutely nothing to the mission, or anyone on the face of the earth...except her.

She retired as a 2-star and it now must kill her each day to know that she has ZERO power over anyone.

By any chance, did this general's name begin with "T" and end with "erry Gabreski"?

FLAPS
04-04-2013, 10:20 PM
By any chance, did this general's name begin with "T" and end with "erry Gabreski"?

Actually, her sidekick Kathy Close while at OC-ALC

Chief_KO
04-05-2013, 03:30 AM
Sandsjames,
That is a prime example of bullet inflation when EPRs close out at different times. Not much you can do about it for now, as the "leadership expectation" is going to be there. As a Chief, I've been the president of the Airman of the Quarter board and members of the NCO & SNCO of the qtr board and saw the exact same bullet on 3 different 1206s. The only possible solution to this is integrity...which is obviously the exception rather than the rule. I have sent EPRs back for bullet recycling.

CrustySMSgt
04-05-2013, 06:14 AM
Great discussion!


I'd like to think that someone who has reached command after at least 10 years TIS supervising Enlisted people they would have SOME understanding of the enlisted promotion system...at least in career fields like Mx, SF, etc.


Im going to get in line with this. I am actually really amazed how little Os understand the enlisted promotion system.

THis is the biggest problem with the EPR system... Os want to compare it to theirs and don't understand that this ISN'T a go/no-go system. They want to default to a 5 being a go and everything below that (to include markdowns on the front) a no-go. I've tried to get Os to come out to some of the briefs I've given on the EPR system and promotion boards, but rarely get taken up on the offer.



Funny. I just reviewed an EPR the day before yesterday. I am the final close authority. Sgt Highspeed got hold of it and had the rater in his/her office for an hour. After that, Highspeed came to me and let me know that the EPR was really weak. I said, I know. Rater and I already went over it and it was good to go. Highspeed said it was just a few tweaks to make it better. I said, OK but if it comes back looking like ratee walks on water, I'm not signing it. Turns out it did. Promote now!!!!!! and such. We have this innate need to make every report a STEP package. The initial report said exactly what we wanted it to.

Well done my fried! I'd like to have been a fly on the wall for your chat with Mr Highspeed!

Can't tell you how many deserving non-5 EPRs I've seen come across my desk, but the bullets still make it sound like the AMN walked on water. Or how many braincells are killed wordsmithing an Amn's first EPR that happens to be a 3... or the flip side, when you send it up written like it should be written and get that inevitable, "come see me" call from someone higher in the review chain who just got smacked in the back of the head with the Good Idea Fairy's wand.

Spend time writing on those who've earned your time and for those who just did their job, make their EPR reflect their level of effort.


Just curious, and this is not a question meant to be confrontational at all, but the issue here is that there are only so many things to lead in some shops. If I have 4 NCOs working on a job, by default the highest ranking gets the "led". That means the other 3 get the "assisted" or something similar. When I send that bullet up for an NCO, it gets thrown back at me because an NCO shouldn't be assisting anything. What do I do in that situation?

As Chief_KO said, it is what it is! Not everyone is in a position to, has the capability to, or takes the initiative to lead. THose that take leadership roles get acknowledge, as does everyone for the role they play. Another huge advantage to uniform closeout dates. Everyone is getting evaluated on the same criteria, unit performance, inspection results, and whatever else happened in that time period.

FLAPS
04-05-2013, 10:28 AM
I believe DOCUMENTED Feedback works wonders. I once wrote a 3-EPR on a lazy, worthless MSgt, then invited him to speak with me after he signed it. His first question was, "why in the world did you give me a 3?" Prepared for this question, I pulled out the feedback form HE signed 3 months prior and reminded him that the word "Satisfactory" was used in every block on the form. That shut him up. The EPR rating also guaranteed he'll never be a SMSgt...which was my explicit goal of the 3.

Just ask yourself how many times you've met a new SMSgt Flight Chief in your shop who was completely incompetant and asked yourself, "how did this MSgt ever make SMSgt?" My guess is that NOBODY gave him a 3 or 4 on his previous EPRs. If you want quality future Enlisted leaders, then push the good ones up and the bad ones out the door. It starts with honest documentation.

Robert F. Dorr
04-05-2013, 11:48 AM
I believe DOCUMENTED Feedback works wonders. I once wrote a 3-EPR on a lazy, worthless MSgt, then invited him to speak with me after he signed it. His first question was, "why in the world did you give me a 3?" Prepared for this question, I pulled out the feedback form HE signed 3 months prior and reminded him that the word "Satisfactory" was used in every block on the form. That shut him up. The EPR rating also guaranteed he'll never be a SMSgt...which was my explicit goal of the 3.

Just ask yourself how many times you've met a new SMSgt Flight Chief in your shop who was completely incompetant and asked yourself, "how did this MSgt ever make SMSgt?" My guess is that NOBODY gave him a 3 or 4 on his previous EPRs. If you want quality future Enlisted leaders, then push the good ones up and the bad ones out the door. It starts with honest documentation.

How hard is it to give a "3"? This explains how to handle documenting it for the person being rated. But doesn't the system itself require documentation as well?

Does anyone ever get a "2"?

FLAPS
04-05-2013, 11:57 AM
How hard is it to give a "3"? This explains how to handle documenting it for the person being rated. But doesn't the system itself require documentation as well?

Does anyone ever get a "2"?

A 3 is Satisfactory. Just rating someone as "Satisfactory" typically brings raters a ton of resistance from their leadership. However, with solid documentation (i.e., written feedbacks) most raters can successfully stick to their guns and give that 3. Additional raters have their own rating block they can use, PLUS a non-concur block, but too many people are afraid to go that route.

The rater's rater has options to rate differently OR non-concur with rater's rating. That's why those options exist.

CrustySMSgt
04-05-2013, 01:31 PM
I believe DOCUMENTED Feedback works wonders. I once wrote a 3-EPR on a lazy, worthless MSgt, then invited him to speak with me after he signed it. His first question was, "why in the world did you give me a 3?" Prepared for this question, I pulled out the feedback form HE signed 3 months prior and reminded him that the word "Satisfactory" was used in every block on the form. That shut him up. The EPR rating also guaranteed he'll never be a SMSgt...which was my explicit goal of the 3.

Just ask yourself how many times you've met a new SMSgt Flight Chief in your shop who was completely incompetant and asked yourself, "how did this MSgt ever make SMSgt?" My guess is that NOBODY gave him a 3 or 4 on his previous EPRs. If you want quality future Enlisted leaders, then push the good ones up and the bad ones out the door. It starts with honest documentation.

Amazing how, after never being told the truth, when faced with honest feedback, people manage to tune it out and still assume they're going to get the same rubber stamp firewall 5 they've always gotten. Even worse when they've been told their satisfactory, but still got 5s... which would explain his surprise when someone actually followed through.

Pullinteeth
04-05-2013, 01:42 PM
I believe DOCUMENTED Feedback works wonders. I once wrote a 3-EPR on a lazy, worthless MSgt, then invited him to speak with me after he signed it. His first question was, "why in the world did you give me a 3?" Prepared for this question, I pulled out the feedback form HE signed 3 months prior and reminded him that the word "Satisfactory" was used in every block on the form. That shut him up. The EPR rating also guaranteed he'll never be a SMSgt...which was my explicit goal of the 3.
Just ask yourself how many times you've met a new SMSgt Flight Chief in your shop who was completely incompetant and asked yourself, "how did this MSgt ever make SMSgt?" My guess is that NOBODY gave him a 3 or 4 on his previous EPRs. If you want quality future Enlisted leaders, then push the good ones up and the bad ones out the door. It starts with honest documentation.

That is a problem. Using an EPR as a weapon to torpedo someone's career is WRONG. If you gave him the 3 because that is what he deserved, great. Saying that not only was it your goal in giving him a three to sink his career but you actually told people that was your goal does not reflect well upon you. I hope you run into a senior officer that hates you and gives you a referral OPR just because they want to sink YOUR career.


A 3 is Satisfactory. Just rating someone as "Satisfactory" typically brings raters a ton of resistance from their leadership. However, with solid documentation (i.e., written feedbacks) most raters can successfully stick to their guns and give that 3. Additional raters have their own rating block they can use, PLUS a non-concur block, but too many people are afraid to go that route.

The rater's rater has options to rate differently OR non-concur with rater's rating. That's why those options exist.

Why should you have to prove that someone is doing a good job? Shouldn't you have to prove that someone is doing an excellent job or a shitty job?

AKNate
04-05-2013, 01:51 PM
Does anyone ever get a "2"?


I knew someone that got a 2 for not having a felony, but just having an attitude, talking about giving out TS material to anyone, telling a SNCO that he was sh@t after he got a LOR. Said NCO had E-6 redlined. Got some E9s he had once worked for to write some letters, sent them off to the board of corrections, the 2 was removed due to personality conflict, got 6 back with back pay.

DWWSWWD
04-05-2013, 02:03 PM
I'll share two more nuggets that I've propbably shared before but they seem again relevant. I was a young TSgt and I sent an EPR up for the Chief... It came back with some red on the side of one of the bullets. It said, "Not a strong bullet." I wrote back, "Not a strong troop", and sent it back up. It never came back.

A couple of years ago, I wrote my EPR and sent it to the boss. He called me to come down so we could work on my report, tweak some bullets and such. Told him there were 2 dozen SNCOs in our unit that could use his time on their EPRs and not to waste any on mine. Goes to my point that Chiefs do not need EPRs. Need some other sort of thing. Maybe two blocks. Make a Command Chief or Retire, fat ass.

FLAPS
04-05-2013, 02:06 PM
That is a problem. Using an EPR as a weapon to torpedo someone's career is WRONG. If you gave him the 3 because that is what he deserved, great. Saying that not only was it your goal in giving him a three to sink his career but you actually told people that was your goal does not reflect well upon you. I hope you run into a senior officer that hates you and gives you a referral OPR just because they want to sink YOUR career.



Why should you have to prove that someone is doing a good job? Shouldn't you have to prove that someone is doing an excellent job or a shitty job?

My decision to give him a 3 was to ensure he never got promoted to a rank where he'd be put into a flight chief position, thus making everyone's life hell.

As for your attack on me, grow the fuck up. You have no earthly idea what kind of person/officer I am. I always strive to make the right decisions, always in coordination with my Chiefs.

DWWSWWD
04-05-2013, 02:09 PM
That is a problem. Using an EPR as a weapon to torpedo someone's career is WRONG. If you gave him the 3 because that is what he deserved, great. Saying that not only was it your goal in giving him a three to sink his career but you actually told people that was your goal does not reflect well upon you. I hope you run into a senior officer that hates you and gives you a referral OPR just because they want to sink YOUR career.

This is going to hurt..... I'm with FLAPS here. Particularly with SNCOs, we make these reports that, in the end, do not describe the SNCO, they get promoted and you spend all day on AFT bitching about them. As a result, Kim Jong Un is able to build a nuke and wipe out your hometown.

SomeRandomGuy
04-05-2013, 03:16 PM
I believe DOCUMENTED Feedback works wonders. I once wrote a 3-EPR on a lazy, worthless MSgt, then invited him to speak with me after he signed it. His first question was, "why in the world did you give me a 3?" Prepared for this question, I pulled out the feedback form HE signed 3 months prior and reminded him that the word "Satisfactory" was used in every block on the form. That shut him up. The EPR rating also guaranteed he'll never be a SMSgt...which was my explicit goal of the 3.

Just ask yourself how many times you've met a new SMSgt Flight Chief in your shop who was completely incompetant and asked yourself, "how did this MSgt ever make SMSgt?" My guess is that NOBODY gave him a 3 or 4 on his previous EPRs. If you want quality future Enlisted leaders, then push the good ones up and the bad ones out the door. It starts with honest documentation.

Good on you for making the tough decision. People on here are constantly complaining about EPR inflation and terrible SNCOs. The solution to terrible SNCOs is to make sure they are rated accurately. Giving that MSgt a 3 does nothing to hurt the MSgt's current rank. It simply keeps them at the level of management where they belong. If a person is not a good leader I am all for the idea of giving them an EPR that blocks them from getting promoted any further.

imported_DannyJ
04-05-2013, 03:45 PM
I'll share two more nuggets that I've propbably shared before but they seem again relevant. I was a young TSgt and I sent an EPR up for the Chief... It came back with some red on the side of one of the bullets. It said, "Not a strong bullet." I wrote back, "Not a strong troop", and sent it back up. It never came back.

I am sooooooooooooooooo using this!

FLAPS
04-05-2013, 05:40 PM
Giving that MSgt a 3 does nothing to hurt the MSgt's current rank. It simply keeps them at the level of management where they belong.

That's the idea!

sandsjames
04-05-2013, 06:10 PM
It's not difficult to get a "3" through the system. The problem is that everyone competing with the "3" my troop gets, everyone equal with my troop, is receiving a 5.

Pullinteeth
04-05-2013, 08:04 PM
My decision to give him a 3 was to ensure he never got promoted to a rank where he'd be put into a flight chief position, thus making everyone's life hell.

As for your attack on me, grow the fuck up. You have no earthly idea what kind of person/officer I am. I always strive to make the right decisions, always in coordination with my Chiefs.

Not an attack on you so why don't you grow up? If you would READ instead of react, I had no problem with the three... Having a purpose when you sit down to write an EPR instead of basing it on actual performance? Classy...

The problem was this;


EPR rating also guaranteed he'll never be a SMSgt...which was my explicit goal of the 3.

If you had stuck to he deserved it and failed to improve after feedback, no problem whatsoever. Saying that you told him or others that you planned to give him a 3 just so he wouldn't be promoted shows EXACTLY what kind of officer you are. EPRs should be based on performance not your personal vendetta..

Hell even if you had said you wrote the three knowing he wouldn't get promoted but didn't feel bad because he was a shitty SNCO would have been just fine with me. Saying you wrote a 3 BECAUSE you didn't want him to get promoted is just plain unprofessional.


This is going to hurt..... I'm with FLAPS here. Particularly with SNCOs, we make these reports that, in the end, do not describe the SNCO, they get promoted and you spend all day on AFT bitching about them. As a result, Kim Jong Un is able to build a nuke and wipe out your hometown.

Have not problem with writing an HONEST EPR/Feedback. What I have a problem with is someone writing an EPR based upon their own personal agenda and in this case, he was stupid enough to tell people that was his goal-that is not only unfair, it is unprofessional.

FLAPS
04-05-2013, 09:45 PM
Not an attack on you so why don't you grow up? If you would READ instead of react, I had no problem with the three... Having a purpose when you sit down to write an EPR instead of basing it on actual performance? Classy...

The problem was this;



If you had stuck to he deserved it and failed to improve after feedback, no problem whatsoever. Saying that you told him or others that you planned to give him a 3 just so he wouldn't be promoted shows EXACTLY what kind of officer you are. EPRs should be based on performance not your personal vendetta..

Hell even if you had said you wrote the three knowing he wouldn't get promoted but didn't feel bad because he was a shitty SNCO would have been just fine with me. Saying you wrote a 3 BECAUSE you didn't want him to get promoted is just plain unprofessional.



Have not problem with writing an HONEST EPR/Feedback. What I have a problem with is someone writing an EPR based upon their own personal agenda and in this case, he was stupid enough to tell people that was his goal-that is not only unfair, it is unprofessional.

I wrote the 3 because he sucked as a SNCO. I also know a 3 will tank any chances of a shitty SNCO getting promoted to the next level where he would do damage to an organization. So yes, I wrote the 3 to stop his advance, where a higher rating MIGHT open the door for the d-bag to get promoted....which I've seen all too often. In all honesty, he deserved a 2 EPR. I think I was being nice.

I apologize for the quick reaction. Just too used to the default, many times unwarranted O-bashing on the MTF.

strataboomer
04-06-2013, 04:05 AM
Saw a link to it on FB right before I came to work. Can't get to YouTube from work, so I'll have to check it out when I get back to my room.

I really hope they listen to all the feedback that says 20 something lines is WAY too many!!

I did read something in another story that says they may look at some quantifyable blocks to justify ratings. Hate to paint folks in to a corner and force them to check blocks, but given how much luck we've had with the "raters should be doing the right thing" option, it appears we're going to have to go to some sort of black & white discriminators to force people to make the tough calls. Downside to that is, it takes the flexibility out of the ratings. There may be extenuating circumstances as to why someone doesn't do something, but if it is go/no-go criteria, you're stuck.

But we have GOT to get this fixed, because as we get smaller, we've GOT to push the right people forward, keep those who are doing great things right where they are at, and make it clear who's got to go when it is time to start trimming the fat.

Agreed.....why does an EPR have more lines than a GO?

pjluckyman
04-06-2013, 11:40 AM
What do you folks think the percentage is of Airman that come to work do their job and go home is? 60-70-80%?

FLAPS
04-06-2013, 11:59 AM
What do you folks think the percentage is of Airman that come to work do their job and go home is? 60-70-80%?

I think 90% just come to work, do their job, and go home. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm ok with this though.

sandsjames
04-06-2013, 08:00 PM
I think 90% just come to work, do their job, and go home. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm ok with this though.

And that's what it should be. The rest should be the ones who get promoted because that's the type of person the AF wants in those positions. I don't like most of those people, and am definitely not one myself, but if the AF wants the person more interested in staying an extra 4 hours in their office every night instead of going home to their family, then the AF gets exactly what they deserve.

Pullinteeth
04-07-2013, 02:13 PM
I wrote the 3 because he sucked as a SNCO. I also know a 3 will tank any chances of a shitty SNCO getting promoted to the next level where he would do damage to an organization. So yes, I wrote the 3 to stop his advance, where a higher rating MIGHT open the door for the d-bag to get promoted....which I've seen all too often. In all honesty, he deserved a 2 EPR. I think I was being nice.

I apologize for the quick reaction. Just too used to the default, many times unwarranted O-bashing on the MTF.

No worries... I have absolutely no problem with writing a D-bag a report that reflects they are a D-bag... My only problem was that you said your EXPRESSED purpose in writing it was so he wouldn't get promoted. That means you either told him that you were going to write him a 3 so he wouldn't be promoted or you told someone else you were going to write him a 3 so he wouldn't get promoted and then wrote him a 3 so he wouldn't get promoted.

What it sounds like is that you misspoke, it wasn't your expressed purpose, you wrote it KNOWING the probable impact but did it because he DESERVED it. Is that about right?

Outback 1982
04-07-2013, 04:12 PM
Actually kind of funny, few of my airman like the young lady.

Chief Cody is the right man for the job, but he just isnt respected in the field. When I say Field, I mean the Maintenace Chiefs who cant see past the days of Chief Murray.

BOSS302
04-07-2013, 06:03 PM
I still do not understand why there is not a blanket system/style of writing for these evaluations. Why must one have to re-adapt from one squadron to the next because one system wants "..." while another demands "--"?

How has "Truly Among the Best" become the standard? Should that not be the exception, reserved for the deserving?

Why is it NOT okay for an NCO to focus on his/her AFSC and excel in all they do on the job? When all hell breaks loose and jets must be launched, who gets it done: the technical experts or the technical generalists whose skills have been rounded-off by too many duty-hours spent managing bake sales, BBQs, and taking CLEPS?

I'm just ranting. I am sure someone will throw some Kool-Aid my way.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-07-2013, 06:24 PM
I still do not understand why there is not a blanket system/style of writing for these evaluations. Why must one have to re-adapt from one squadron to the next because one system wants "..." while another demands "--"?

How has "Truly Among the Best" become the standard? Should that not be the exception, reserved for the deserving?

Why is it NOT okay for an NCO to focus on his/her AFSC and excel in all they do on the job? When all hell breaks loose and jets must be launched, who gets it done: the technical experts or the technical generalists whose skills have been rounded-off by too many duty-hours spent managing bake sales, BBQs, and taking CLEPS?

I'm just ranting. I am sure someone will throw some Kool-Aid my way.

Yeah dude, you’re totally glossing over the total person concept that the well rounded airmen exemplifies.

By demonstrating their leadership in the dynamic environment of unit-level fund raising campaigns they will be better suited to look at a crisis situation holistically and effectively manage positive outcomes during the launching of combat sorties.

These technical generalists as you call them are worthy of high praise because they are truly among the best of a stratified group of people at a wing-level barbecue. Not only did they go to the commissary for all the food and beverages, they stood around the grill and helped set out the paper plates and condiments.

Their service doesn’t stop there because they will also be the ones putting the twisty ties on the garbage bags after the barbecue is over and then they will still find time to study for as many CLEPs as the CCAF allows.

They are exemplars of professionalism and it is hard to put a dollar amount on their contribution to the mission; however, if you think hard enough you can usually come up with a grossly exaggerated astronomically high dollar amount.

Is that Kool-Aid blue enough for you or did I use too much water?