PDA

View Full Version : Non-concur EPR



Anon
08-02-2013, 03:09 AM
Anyone dealt with this before. Only saw it once in 20 years. On the verge of another one.

Supervisor pushing for a 4, CC wants it to be a 3 (there were some discipline issues, but member has recovered well).

The other incident did not turn out well. Similar scenario. Both rater and cc stuck to their guns. I applaud the rater for sticking but ended up costing his troop. Since the cc non-concurred, he had to comment why, which ended up making it a referral.

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 05:19 AM
Seens it a couple times. Sounds like your situation is a tough one... if the rater "sticks to their guns" they're actually going to "hurt" their troop more if the EPR ends up being a referral. Though it seems like that could be avoided; a statement of fact regarding the CC's assessment of the member's overall performance "only" being a 3 doesn't necessarily have to be a referral comment.

imported_StandardsAMust
08-02-2013, 06:32 AM
Anyone dealt with this before. Only saw it once in 20 years. On the verge of another one.

Supervisor pushing for a 4, CC wants it to be a 3 (there were some discipline issues, but member has recovered well).

The other incident did not turn out well. Similar scenario. Both rater and cc stuck to their guns. I applaud the rater for sticking but ended up costing his troop. Since the cc non-concurred, he had to comment why, which ended up making it a referral.

Rare that this happens, but the process is simple. If the CC non-concurs, he simply initials the Additional Rater's Rating block with a stroke of the pen. That becomes the EPR rating. It does not make it a referral unless the CC decides to include a derogatory comment. If so, then you must revert to the complicated process of using AF Form 77.

Chief_KO
08-02-2013, 12:22 PM
Seen probably 3-4. One the CC did not concur and his rating was higher than the raters or first endorser.

Shaken1976
08-02-2013, 12:36 PM
I had it happen once...for a higher rating. Ticked me right off. I had a huge trail of paperwork on this individual. Stuff like driving without insurance (x2), late to work, failure of CDCs, not paying bills, and some other stuff. CC threw out some of the paperwork because he didn't like how stern the wording was... SMH.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-02-2013, 12:39 PM
I worked with a SMSgt who stuck to his guns on a lower rating (for very good reasons), but the CC disagreed. I backed my SMSgt and respectfully told the CC to use the non-concur block. That's why it's there, yet we are many times brainwashed into believing we are not allowed to exercise our other legal, yet unpopular options.

Anon
08-02-2013, 02:26 PM
Seens it a couple times. Sounds like your situation is a tough one... if the rater "sticks to their guns" they're actually going to "hurt" their troop more if the EPR ends up being a referral. Though it seems like that could be avoided; a statement of fact regarding the CC's assessment of the member's overall performance "only" being a 3 doesn't necessarily have to be a referral comment.

I thought it could be avoided to, but AFI says you must be specific. Since the non-concur was mainly due to discipline, CC "had" to specifically say it. I will review again to make sure though.

Anon
08-02-2013, 02:34 PM
I had it happen once...for a higher rating. Ticked me right off. I had a huge trail of paperwork on this individual. Stuff like driving without insurance (x2), late to work, failure of CDCs, not paying bills, and some other stuff. CC threw out some of the paperwork because he didn't like how stern the wording was... SMH.

Good thing is, I do not have to worry about that with current CC. Not once had he pushed for a higher marking or rating. At least half of the EPRs we question if the markings/ratings are too high. Working hard to minimize over-inflation.

Anon
08-02-2013, 02:43 PM
I worked with a SMSgt who stuck to his guns on a lower rating (for very good reasons), but the CC disagreed. I backed my SMSgt and respectfully told the CC to use the non-concur block. That's why it's there, yet we are many times brainwashed into believing we are not allowed to exercise our other legal, yet unpopular options.

All it takes is one good leader to support the raters right to mark what believes is right. Problem is most people are not willing to deal with the conflict.

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 03:16 PM
I thought it could be avoided to, but AFI says you must be specific. Since the non-concur was mainly due to discipline, CC "had" to specifically say it. I will review again to make sure though.

Saying you disgree because the Airman had some challenges that were corrected isn't necessarily a referral statement. You could easily say the member had challenges meeting standards and required mentoring to improve performance and it not be a referral.

Anon
08-02-2013, 03:51 PM
Saying you disgree because the Airman had some challenges that were corrected isn't necessarily a referral statement. You could easily say the member had challenges meeting standards and required mentoring to improve performance and it not be a referral.

Thanks for the input. We considered how to word it so it wouldn't sound like a negative comment. Even saying "had challenges meeting standards" sounds negative. I think it's a gray area though.

DWWSWWD
08-02-2013, 03:58 PM
It happened to me for a higher rating. CC still had to do a 77 to explain the disagreement. The CC absolutely could avoid the referral. "Rater did not accurately consider Airman's performance relative to peers; Ratee has room for growth in primary responsibilities," etc. I can see that he is clearly drawing a line here, asserting his authority. This is a rare case where the supervisor should recognize that he's been beat, change his rating and avoid the referral.

Anon
08-02-2013, 04:14 PM
I can see that he is clearly drawing a line here, asserting his authority. This is a rare case where the supervisor should recognize that he's been beat, change his rating and avoid the referral.

I tried really hard to get the rater to understand this. Maybe this time will be different. I like your suggestion on how to word it though. Might be the loophole we are looking for. Thanks!

DWWSWWD
08-02-2013, 04:21 PM
I tried really hard to get the rater to understand this. Sometimes you fall on your sword and you just end up dead. When I was a bit younger I used to take these things personally and see it as a win/lose. There is a lot of room in the middle if you keep your eye on the goal. It's not about you winning. It's about you getting the best outcome for your Airman. Obviously in this case, this Airman has some room for improvement. Roll with it, learn from it, pick the Airman up, dust him off and show him how to earn a 5 that leaves no room for questions.

imported_DannyJ
08-02-2013, 04:39 PM
Millenia ago, I was pushing to give Amn Snuffy (my troop) a 3 rating for a multitude of reasons, but the additional rater wouldn't have it. They demanded a 4 rating, and when I wouldn't give in, they backdated a CRO to give the Amn to someone that would. Funny thing is, when I asked why not just non-concur, the additional rater said that it wouldn't look professional to ask the commander to sign it.

I don't see the issue with a non-concur.

CrustySMSgt
08-02-2013, 04:45 PM
Millenia ago, I was pushing to give Amn Snuffy (my troop) a 3 rating for a multitude of reasons, but the additional rater wouldn't have it. They demanded a 4 rating, and when I wouldn't give in, they backdated a CRO to give the Amn to someone that would. Funny thing is, when I asked why not just non-concur, the additional rater said that it wouldn't look professional to ask the commander to sign it.

I don't see the issue with a non-concur.

Gotta love a closet crusader who doesn't have the balls to stand by their convictions.