PDA

View Full Version : EPR Changes



Silverback
09-16-2013, 11:51 PM
It looks like there are going to be some EPR changes coming in the next couple of years. See link below.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130916/NEWS/309160039/EPR-overhaul-coming-Biggest-single-change-ever-enlisteds

imnohero
09-17-2013, 12:23 AM
Well, it's about time, only took 'em 10 years to realize there was a problem, and another 5 to fix it. Practially light speed for big blue. /sarcasm/

On the other hand, one can only imagine how bad they can make it. /ok, really, I'm done with the sarcasm/

On the third hand, since they are just "brainstorming", maybe they should get some brains involved. /really, that's the end of the sarcasm, I promise/

<sigh>
Whatever they do, it won't fix the real problem.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
09-17-2013, 12:56 AM
And to think that EPRs were created to solve the APR inflation problem. If the next EPR fix includes ratings that have WAPS value, then the inflation will continue.

Silverback
09-17-2013, 01:16 AM
And to think that EPRs were created to solve the APR inflation problem. If the next EPR fix includes ratings that have WAPS value, then the inflation will continue.

Agreed.

BigBaze
09-17-2013, 01:26 AM
I expect nothing..perhaps some more talk with the same lack of results.

Chief_KO
09-17-2013, 03:29 AM
It may take till 2015 as each change is made incrementally or by rank, meaning SMSgt-CMSgt EPR changes first, then MSgt, then TSgt.... Especially if the changes involve syncing closeout to PECD, etc. Just a guess on my part but as I have said before, making EPRs truly annual (close out on/near PECD) will by itself cut into inflation and creative writing. I had APRs (and wrote a few) along with all three versions of the EPR, and I truly believe if all were rated on the same time period (eliminating CRO-jockeying to "help Johnny") a large degree of honest ratings will occur. If not, then I guess the AF is truly doomed.

Z1911
09-17-2013, 04:29 AM
How does that song go? Oh, yeah, that's what it was..."The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round..."

What the song doesn't address is whether or not the bus is going forward or backward. I guess the ACC CCM doesn't remember how the EPR was "sold" to the population back in the late 80s. They used phrases like "'Biggest single change' ever for enlisteds" back then as well. Here's a little something from the time period:

"OER/APR ADMINISTRATION: A GUIDE FOR UNIT LEVEL MONITORS"
(http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a172336.pdf)
The single thing that will resolve EPR inflation will be to completely remove any/all connection to promotion scoring. Use it to validate whether or not an individual is "worthy" of being promoted, and nothing else.

But that ain't NEVER gonna happen...

imported_StandardsAMust
09-17-2013, 12:46 PM
Our current CMSAF and CSAF are making changes to alot of things...only time will tell if they make things better or make things worse...right now, I'm not holding my breath.

For instance, the new PT changes that take effect in two weeks still have not been released. So far...all talk, no action.

But at least they are attempting change.

Also, how do you post JPG images on this forum...I'd like to post some shocking stuff but can't figure out how. Please, someone PM me with instructions.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 12:59 PM
Our current CMSAF and CSAF are making changes to alot of things...only time will tell if they make things better or make things worse...right now, I'm not holding my breath.

For instance, the new PT changes that take effect in two weeks still have not been released. So far...all talk, no action.

But at least they are attempting change.

Also, how do you post JPG images on this forum...I'd like to post some shocking stuff but can't figure out how. Please, someone PM me with instructions.

I agree, at least they are trying. All we've heard in the past is that there's nothing wrong with it. Now it is being addressed, which is a step in the right direction. Only hindsight will let people know if it's a good move, but it can't be any worse than it is now.

BISSBOSS
09-17-2013, 02:13 PM
Here's the thing that scares me...

The statement

"Airmen should “get ready...”"

But there is no identification of WHAT to get ready for. That smacks of the "Ready, fire aim" execution that has become the trademark of Air Force leadership in the last few years. This thing could be REALLY ugly and I'm not confident that the real problem (subjective enforcement of standards leading to inflated ratings) will have been addressed.


-BB-

imnohero
09-17-2013, 03:02 PM
They need to get rid of the entire peer rating approach. Without clear objective standards for ratings, there will always be inflation. Personally, I think they should go back to the drawing board on the entire EPR system. Stop using EPRS as event records. Get rid of bullets, that's at least 50% of the problem...single line bullets, use dashes instead of a comma, do bullets match rating, style changes with every new CC. It shouldn't take 3 weeks (or 3 months) to get an EPR in the system and bullets are the cause of that. Get rid of the entire CRO, min days supervision (waiverable) nonsense. Make the report due on PECD or annually by entrance date.

Just throwing ideas about there so you get my point, that it's the EPR system that needs change, not the form. Without substantial change in the underlying process, forms and/or quotas won't make any difference in the long run.

BRUWIN
09-17-2013, 03:11 PM
I've long been an advocate of quotas.

Same here...holding raters or CCs accountable for how many folks recieve the highest rating will be the only thing that fixes it. I've seen it work with the Army.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 03:31 PM
I wouldn't go with quotas. You may be in a small organization with a couple golden boys and you are screwed, no matter what you do.

Bullets need to go away, completely. They are useless. They are nothing but fluff, every one of them. The only things that get written up are either derogatory statements or exemplary statements (the same way an award/dec is done). Everyone starts at a 3. Derogatory statements takes away and exemplary statements add. The points for WAPS testing need to be far less. Maybe an extra couple points for a 4, then a couple more for a 5. If it's a 3, then there is no need to write anything. The higher/lower ratings only would have paperwork accompany them. Then, you also make PT score part of the WAPS (no points for 75 to 79.9, 2 points for 80-89, 3-5 points for 90+).

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 03:37 PM
I just think there needs to be some type of control mechanism on the ratings...whether that be quotas, or evaluator averages, or whatever it is...something that will required or induce raters to put limits on how many 5s and 4s they give out...I think that will be the "major change" they are talking about...personally, I've long been an advocate of quotas.

If we went to a quota system I think there should be limits on the top 2 ratings but no other quotas (meaning commander does not have to give any 5s if none are worthy). If a unit only has 3 Amn it shouldn't come to a point where the CC is allowed to give a 5, 4, and 3 and simply compares the 3 Amn against each other. If the quotas are strictly based on percentage of number assigned it almost becomes like a lotto. You just hope you get stationed somewhere with a bunch of dirtbags. Also the quota system does nothing to fix inflation at higher ranks. Most bases are only going to have 1 or maybe 2 SNCOs in small AFSCs. I was at a remote location once where my unit consisted of a MSgt a Tsgt, a SSgt and me (SrA at the time). So what quota does the unit get for each rank? All of us were "truely among the best" by default because we had no competition.

DWWSWWD
09-17-2013, 03:47 PM
Get ready......... When we did this the last time, folks tried to do the right thing. SEAs and CCs had different ideas of what that means so it played out as quotas in a a lot of cases, honest ratings in many others. In the end, when it quickly inflated, it meant that some folks were burned initially. My first one was a 3. Probably the rating that I've deserved my whole career. Interestingly, I made BTZ with the 3 on top or one down. Would we do that today?

What if the waist measurement or PT comes out of the EPR specifically? Probably good. But what about the poor bastards that we took stripes from because we were trying to do the right thing? I'm talking about folks with line numbers that failed a test for the first time and had a referral report becasue it closed before they could test again.

DWWSWWD
09-17-2013, 04:21 PM
In the end...todays's system most screws over the truly exceptional...and a quota system would most help those folks.

This is the piece that most people fail to get. I think I posted this before.... I had a firewall come across my desk for a mediocre dude with a PT failure during the term. I called the rater in and said, "So you're telling me this guy is exactly the same as TSgt Highspeed (also his troop)?" He said no. I said OK. Then to be fair to TSgt Highspeed, you can change this to a 4 or write Highspeed a 6. You're are screwing Highspeed for a guy that doesn't give two shits about your expectations or knowing his job.

You are right of course that there were never official quotas. Little consolation to the guy who's supervisor went to the 5 bag and found there were none left in it.

DWWSWWD
09-17-2013, 04:23 PM
Also, make it illegal to mention volunteering or PT on EPR. Thoughts? As long as PT and volunteering are conditions of employment, they have a place on the EPR.

DWWSWWD
09-17-2013, 04:46 PM
Remember EPR inflation is not necessarily the problem they should be trying to solve.

It is how to make job performance matter for promotion, advancement and duty selection.

This is why I'm so baffled when people suggest, "We can fix EPR inflation by making them not count for anything important"....well, yeah, sure...but what's the point then? Absolutely. As a hiring authority (for now anyway) bullets matter. They are the only thing that I can use to separate this 5 from this 5 from this 5. I am looking for leaders and folks that made the best of an opportunity. Sometimes that shows in a garbage job they were given or in a task that would be out of reach of a peer. That's what you have the opportunity to do with your bullets. If DSD is going to be a thing, and it looks like it will, bullets will count.

Drackore
09-17-2013, 04:49 PM
Promote/Don't Promote. Make this a go/no-go system and be done with it. Forget bullets. Capture blocks such as CDCs, CCAF, PT (Sat/Unsat/Excellent/Exempt), Upgrade on Time, OJT Qual'd status, etc. 100% all job/msn related. None of this whole person bullshit. Save that for a 1206.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 05:01 PM
This is most often the complaint brought up when we talk quotas. My answer to that is this: That would be short-term, and over time, things should work out for the truly exceptional. Under a quota system, I imagine there will be very VERY few people who are the 5s at all their bases and circumstances. Most people, even the best people, will find themselves behind the golden boys at some point in their careers...even the golden boys. But, when you look at the record over time, you will see that those who are good, are consistently 5s, maybe some 4s...those who are decent are consistently 4s, maybe some 5s, etc. Very true.


Okay...so basically, you want to see a guy who is book-smart be able to be promoted despite poor work performance and barely passing PT scores. 1 or 2 points can make a huge difference. Just ask those who had a dec miss the cutoff date. You're looking at a 6-8 point advantage for the truly exceptional. That's huge, especially considering right now those "exceptional" performers are on and even keel with the true 3's because the 3's are getting 5's anyway. This isn't perfect, but it does give an advantage. Hell, right now a person with a 3 can still be book-smart and get promoted even with the point difference. You get rid of the 135 and it makes the 5-8 points huge.

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 05:06 PM
Absolutely. As a hiring authority (for now anyway) bullets matter. They are the only thing that I can use to separate this 5 from this 5 from this 5. I am looking for leaders and folks that made the best of an opportunity. Sometimes that shows in a garbage job they were given or in a task that would be out of reach of a peer. That's what you have the opportunity to do with your bullets. If DSD is going to be a thing, and it looks like it will, bullets will count.

You know what I found the EPR most useful for? Writing my resume after I left the AF. Of course I had to go back and spell out the words that had been shortened and convert acronyisms. Overall I was able to write a pretty solid resume.

So I do agree with you bullets do mean something if you can actually understand what they are saying. Poorly written bullets are completely useless though. Say you are evaluating a Security Forces Airman and a Finance Airman for a special duty. If the bullets simply say what the people did without comparing them they are just a bunch of numbers. If the cop wrote 52 speeding tickets and 10 DUIs is that better than the Finance guy who processed $3 Million in vouchers? I have no idea. Those 52 speeding tickets could have all came the week before EPR closeout and the 10 DUIs was just a one night checkpoint he was part of. On the other hand the $3 million in vouchers could have just been just one group of deployers who came back from a 6 month TDY where they all stayed in a hotel that was $120 per night. Numbers without context mean nothing to people outside of the career field.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 05:16 PM
I agree. All we hear is feedback will fix the epr system...raters will fix the epr system...well they didn't fix squat.
Accountability can help, but unsure what menchanism can be used to guage the commanders.

I remember when Commanders were gonna be held to the fire if their unit had too many PT failures,
but have not seen 1 to date. I don't think the all powerful commanders are worried about anything
and they will do with their people what they like. But, as they sign all EPRs, it's hard not to say
they are the cause of EPR inflation. Do not expect leaders to hold leaders accountable.
Would be nice though Chief.

I think this would be WAY too difficult. All the commanders can do is take the word of the Supervisors. We already have too many issues with Chiefs/Supers getting involved with the ratings when they don't know anything about the troop other than the fact that they don't run as fast at PT.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 05:28 PM
Seems is ALL commanders saying that...they are all in cahoots

Agree completely. Hell, everything is tied to a firewall. Special duties, decs, etc. As long as that continues, inflation will be there, one way or another. And, what's funny is those decs are only worth 1-5 points, the same 1-5 points my solution talks about making a big difference.

imnohero
09-17-2013, 06:07 PM
These are all the same things that come up every time EPR reform in mentioned. WAPS calculations, tieing EPRs to awards/decs/special duties, subjective peer ratings, quotas to ensure accountability, etc.

Changing any ONE of these things won't fix the problem of "inflation"...just as the APR to EPR change didn't fix it, because they changed the style but not the substance. They need to do something dramatically different, or 10 years from now we will be right back where we are.

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 06:09 PM
If WAPS is to promote best performers and you say EPRs should be best way to guage that, then it's faulty.
Why? Becuase even the top performer will only get a max 135 points. Just by studying good, someone
can get up to 200 points from PFE and SKT, which are guaging Air Force knowledge and job knowledge,
not job performance. So maybe the big fix will be change the points dramatically. Getting inflation down,
while making EPR points be at least 50% or more of total points. Example PFE 50 points, SKT 100 points
and EPR 200 points.

As a young Amn I got a DUI off base while home on leave. Because the DUI was handled through civilian courts I got an LOR from base and a UIF (that MPF magically never had a record of). I was a pretty sharp troop when it came to job knowledge. When it came time to write my EPR I was pulled into the superintendant's office. He wanted to know if I planned on re-enlisting at the end of my term. He said that as of right now my EPR was a 4 but if I wanted to re-enlist he would try to get me a 5 so I wouldn't get screwed for promotion.

I straight up told him I didnt deserve a 5 (I was a little shocked to be getting a 4 anyways). He went ahead and had the EPR signed as a 4 with no mention of the DUI (otherwise it would need to be a referral). On my next EPR I got a 5 so when it came time to test I had 4,4,5 with the 5 on top. As I mentioned I knew my job well so I scored ridiculously high and made SSgt first try. With my EPR scores I got like 120 out of 135. Basically I only had to make up a measly 15 points to be on equal footing with people who got all 5s their entire career. As mentioned by someone above the people getting screwed by the system are people who really are top performers. They spend 1,000 hours per year volunteering while I was learning my job. While it wasn't right for me to get a 4 with a DUI their firewalls 5s earned them roughly 15 points more than me. I wonder if they still think it was worth it?

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 06:19 PM
This is an extremely hard nut to crack. They can change one thing and cause something else to fail.
I just hope like people are discussing, they look at whole picture, interrelationships (eprs-decs) and
get input from every level of the AF, not just the top. I truly hope they get it fixed, it would be a miracle.

The first step is getting rid of awards/decs just for time on station with firewalls. The ones that are worth points need to be for actually doing something above and beyond, not just for being a certain rank for a certain time at a certain base without getting in trouble.

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 06:29 PM
This is an extremely hard nut to crack. They can change one thing and cause something else to fail.
I just hope like people are discussing, they look at whole picture, interrelationships (eprs-decs) and
get input from every level of the AF, not just the top. I truly hope they get it fixed, it would be a miracle.

No such thing as a perfect/foolproof system. The aim should basically be take make it as fair as possible for everyone and then concede that there will be some outliers who will get a rating that is too high or low.

http://i.imgur.com/v3Yfy.jpg.jpg

20+Years
09-17-2013, 06:47 PM
Well...they could have boards for every rank, run by...

Wait for it...







RETIREES!


Alas, the job would never get done!

Drackore
09-17-2013, 07:14 PM
Now don't get me wrong and think I am disagreeing with ya, but seriously...what else is there? Quotas? More rankings? We went from a 10 tiered system to 5, and that did no good. Why bother with a 5 tiered system? Go or no-go is good enough. Yea, I hear ya brother...but the burden should always be on the rater, and yes - leadership SHOULD be sanity checking this nonsense. Now I do live in the real world and yes I know that in some units you have Chiefs or E9s that say "It's not fair you are giving this person a mark down and if you do...maybe you should get a mark down on yours" and in other unit's you have the same leaders saying "Well I never leave my desk but from my made up observations that person doesn't deserve your glorious ratings and I think you should be rating them lower".

It's a never ending, vicious cycle that, no matter how much we change this EPR and no matter HOW we change this EPR - we can't change the people or the culture.

The bottom line is thus: The main problem will never...ever...ever go away. Real, accurate, true performance reports AIR FORCE WIDE will never be fully realized. WE ALL must learn to accept that. You'll have three camps: Those that do accurately report and fight tooth and nail to ensure that accurate reports get filed into the system of record. Those that file inflated reports because, well golly gee - Amn Snuffy is just a great fella. Finally, those that are just fucking impossible to deal with and expect way too much or think their shit doesn't stink and thus everyone else is beneath them and never live up to their impossible to reach expectations and take the meaning of Firewall-5 to be way too literal...."no one can be perfect".


So, instead of 99.5% of the people getting 5s...99.5% of the people get Promote or Go....what does that solve?

BENDER56
09-17-2013, 07:17 PM
Most organizations have the same problems with employee evaluations. The AF is hardly unique. Although the AF tying its rating system to promotions makes it a bigger concern for airmen.

Anyway, I'm going to offer my personal recollection of the APR/EPR switchover in the late '80s. AFPC rolled out an AF-wide PR program before the change. At Mather, their were mandatory briefings at the base theater. The briefer was a one-star(!) from AFPC. We were told inflation was over and that a 4 would be the new gold standard with very few obviously outstanding airmen getting 5s, and if we all believed that and had confidence that everyone else believed it and we were all singing from the same sheet of music, it would work.

And it appeared to work -- for a couple of cycles. I went from firewall 9 APRs to a 4 for my first EPR (which comically had every rating on the front marked one block to the left.) Then, suddenly, for reasons that I've never heard, AFPC released a scale of "expectations" that were NOT quotas. Nope, they're not quotas -- we promise. Now, I wish I had a copy of this guidance because I seem to be the only person who remembers this, but the guidance gave specific figures (that were NOT quotas) for the percentage of 5s one would "expect" to see for each rank, with lower ranks having an "expectation" of fewer 5s and higher and higher ranks having more.

I'm sorry I don't remember the scale exactly, but I do remember the "expectation" for SSgts was 45% and for E-9s it was 95%. This immediately pissed me off because I was an acknowledged superior performer at the time and had recently been selected to teach tech school and now you're telling me half the SSgts in the AF get a higher ranking than me?! No way. Not to mention that when you compare E-9s against their peers, 95% of them are outstanding -- 95% are the exception? Right.

Anyway, that blew the whole "we're all on the same sheet of music" crap out of the water and the ratings race was on.

BENDER56
09-17-2013, 07:40 PM
... and, regarding actual quotas, if they're going to go that route I think they'll need to establish one close-out date for all ratees and have the quota be applied farther up the rating chain. That way every apparent golden boy doesn't get an automatic 5 just because he's in a small shop.

Another story from the APR/EPR days; our group CC at Sheppard came back from an ATC (now AETC) conference and addressed a concern we instructors had about the EPR "expectations". Specifically, most of us were standouts in our AFS before we were selected to teach tech school. Now, so our theory went, we were being compared to other standouts and because of the new "expectations" now in effect, that meant we were being penalized for EPR promotion points because we chose to work at an "elite" assignment. Others in ATC apparently felt the same and our group CC reported to us that he heard verbatim from the ATC CC that he took those concerns to meeting of all the MAJCOM commanders and argued that because ATC selects the best-of-the-best from all the other MAJCOMs, it therefore it should have a higher "expectation" for 5s. Supposedly he was laughed out of the room. Our group CC related that the SAC CC was particularly rankled that the ATC CC would even hint that ATC troops were overall better than SAC troops.

So, there's that problem with quotas -- how do you attract people who can count on getting superior ratings in the field to go to a competitive assignment and risk being just as good but getting lower ratings because of it?

Edit/Correction: I think my unit was still a wing when this happened, not a group. Not that it really matters ... I just like accuracy.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 07:44 PM
And with quotas, as has been mentioned, close-outs would all have to be the same time for each rank, which means that 2 months before closeout would turn into something like ORI/UCI prep with every involved working in a big room together, 12 hour days, to make sure that the reports were complete on time. It would be similar to an award board and would result in everyone arguing why their troop deserved the 5 over the guy from the other shop. Ultimately, it would come down to which supervisor carried the biggest stick in the eyes of "leadership". It would be a joke.

gumbo31
09-17-2013, 10:07 PM
I just hope they make them simpler and easier to write.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 11:19 PM
Okay...at 9:40 he talks about taking PT off the EPR...I don't actually disagree with that part...accidentally grouped that into the rest of your post talking about not making it worth WAPS points.

There are a couple other good points in the video...

The one Airmen making the point about the "importance of writing style" was good.

At 9:00 - 9:35 or so, CMSAF seems open to the idea of quotas...that we know who the best Airmen are and if pressed to, we could rack and stack them.

It doesn't matter if PT stays or goes from the EPR. It will still be marked down in either leadership or standards, and will still carry more weight than any other items in those blocks.

imported_DannyJ
09-17-2013, 11:39 PM
PT and volunteerism off EPR.
Check box for CCAF. NO OTHER MENTION OF EDUCATION!
Only 7 bullets (those are the only ones people ready anyway).
3 ratings: seperate, retain, promote.
Remove SRE from SNCO EPRs.

Only those signing see the EPR.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
09-18-2013, 03:58 AM
I just hope they make them simpler and easier to write.

Well, I think they should use the 1206 as the EPR form and require raters to use up all white space on both sides. Each line should alternate between job performance, volunteerism, followership, academic self-improvement, leadership and PT self improvement. Raters should follow this exact order until both sides are filled up. Also, no acronyms should be used more than once. Only leadership bullets can use dashes, followership uses ellipses, PT uses semi-colons. Each bullet needs maximum impact, but no abbreviations allowed.

Airborne
09-18-2013, 06:10 AM
PT and volunteerism off EPR.
Check box for CCAF. NO OTHER MENTION OF EDUCATION!
Only 7 bullets (those are the only ones people ready anyway).
3 ratings: seperate, retain, promote.
Remove SRE from SNCO EPRs.

Yes please!

pjluckyman
09-19-2013, 01:55 PM
Here is the suggestion that the wife and I submitted when the Innovative Airmen site opened up. We never heard back either way if they were going to push this up.

Also my squadron had pushed it to the group for when the CSAF/CMSAF stopped by last month and were looking for ideas to save money.

In 1989 the AF transitioned from the APR system to the EPR system in an attempt to fight the rampant inflation of ratings. After 25 years we are right where we were in 1989. The majority of ratings are in the 5 category and the force in languishing with an inflation problem.

In the beginning there was an unofficial quota system that had no guidelines. I was personally affected by this when I was the Amn of the Quarter for the squadron and subsequently received a 4 after being told that I couldn’t get a five because they had given them all out.

Over the years I have contemplated what was wrong with the evaluation system. From the first time this system was discussed in my NCO preparatory class we knew that there was going to be the AF way and the real way. The AF way was that everyone was a three and you moved up or down from there. The true way was that everyone was a five and you went down from there. I think this is the key to our suggestion. We need to get to the AF way.

Only 1 percent of the forces are CMSgt’s, 2 percent are SMSgts, and 10 percent are MSgts.

217,926 or 81.82% of the current force are in the grades of A1C-TSgt.

1. Between 4.9 and 10 man hours per report are spent preparing the documentation, review, and processing at the squadron level for their reports.

2. Between $24,178,889 and $46,407,341 dollars in personnel are spent per year in this process. With our suggestion we are looking to cut this down accordingly

1. Cut down to 50 minutes per report at the squadron level

2. Reduce cost by between $21,027,679 and $43,256,131 dollars per year.

The AF way is that the majority of people should be receiving the rating of 3 which in short terms is a person that comes to work, does their job, then goes home, in a nut shell meets all standards. If this is the case why do we spend so much time writing works of fiction on those people instead of writing packages, decorations, or LOC’s and LOR’s with facts?

On the whole in my career and thru anecdotal surveying of all ranks in preparation for this suggestion the number of 3’s is roughly around 80%. The other 20 percent are about evenly split between those that need to be recognized for their outstanding behavior and 10% who need to be administratively dealt with due to inappropriate behavior. This 20% is where our supervisory time would be better spent in the best interest of the AF. Start identifying those that truly deserve those 4’s and 5’s and rehabilitating or separating those that fall below that line.

With that in mind I think we could do this by keeping it simple and changing the stigma of what a 3 truly is and what it means, and putting the responsibility back on the ratee and rater to justify the ratings.

First a three is a good worker and someone who is not necessarily concerned with doing more or less. The AF needs good workers who are happy with what they do for the AF. I think the groups of A1C-TSgts are full of those types of people and we do them no service by giving them ratings they don’t deserve.

We start from the initial EPR and identify to the Ratee that they will not be punished for being the “good” worker and that they will still have the potential to make it to TSgt and be able to retiree.

Secondly, we need to make it clear that if the Ratee ever has any aspirations of being a SNCO, being selected for a special duty that somewhere along the line they will have to make that decision and start doing those things that are above and beyond that will be required to advance past TSgt.

With this in mind the Raters will be put on the spot to justify any ratings above or below the meets standards block with appropriate comments.

On the new form a meets standard rating will have no comments. This is the key to this system working. The reason no comments are required is because the ratee meets standards.

Any rating to the right or left one block will have one bullet.

Any rating to the far right or left two blocks will have two bullets.
Ratee’s that are in the higher or lower categories should have paperwork support for those ratings either in the form of LOC’s LOR’s or monthly, or quarterly package submissions.

The scoring system on the EPR will also change for this form. It will no longer be a straight 1 to 5. You will have scores between 1 to a 5 for the overall score. Each of the five areas will be a graduated score from .2 to a full 1.0.

For WAPS testing the overall score for EPR’s will go from 135 to a max of 25 points with the last five EPR’’s being counted. In 2012 there was only a 6 point difference between the EPR average of SSgt selects and non-selects. In the TSgt testing the difference was 1.25 points. In the new system if someone had all three’s they would have 15 points for testing vs 25 points for all 5’s.

With no bullets required for an area marked as meets standards we expect that supervisors will chose the path of least resistance and rather than spending time creating bullets they will rate more honestly.

Bumble78
09-19-2013, 02:17 PM
With no bullets required for an area marked as meets standards we expect that supervisors will chose the path of least resistance and rather than spending time creating bullets they will rate more honestly.

But how can we prove everyone is a special unique individual snowflake if we rate them honestly?

pjluckyman
09-19-2013, 02:21 PM
The problem is that they are more like a can of Pringles then a storm of snowflakes, and it is time to stop believing that lie.

sandsjames
09-19-2013, 02:44 PM
PT and volunteerism off EPR.
Check box for CCAF. NO OTHER MENTION OF EDUCATION!
Only 7 bullets (those are the only ones people ready anyway).
3 ratings: seperate, retain, promote.
Remove SRE from SNCO EPRs.

Only those signing see the EPR.

Agree agree agree...the thing I hated the most was that people who already had degrees were still required to have education, so someone working on their CCAF could get a better rating than someone who already has a CCAF/BA/etc. Ridiculous...

imported_DannyJ
09-19-2013, 03:40 PM
Agree agree agree...the thing I hated the most was that people who already had degrees were still required to have education, so someone working on their CCAF could get a better rating than someone who already has a CCAF/BA/etc. Ridiculous...

Agreed. The really sad part about the whole thing is that it's too simple to be signed off on by leadership. Too many folks out there looking for reasons to justify their presence.

Tank82
09-19-2013, 09:46 PM
The EPR system will never be fixed until people start to address the root problem. The root problem is not the "supervisor rating correctly". As long as you have a rating system that assigns a number to a person, you will always have inflation.

The problem is the entire AF SYSTEM is broke. If an Airman is rated a 4, which is above average, why is that Airmen not even CONSIDERED for a special duty? The AF closes so many doors on "above average" performers, yet turns around and says "a 4 is actually a great rating!". And then they wonder why the special duty process is broke. "These people were the best of the best, they all had 5 EPRs... whay are they sexually assaulting all the trainees?"

Promote / Don't Promote. This should be the only "rating" on the EPR. You would either get max points that EPR cycle for WAPS, or you would get 0 (effectivly enabling the do not promote). Individuals would then have to actually READ the EPR to determine the best possible canidate, instead of vetting through numbers.

The 1 thru 5 system is garbage, as was the 1 thru 9.

Tank82
09-19-2013, 09:53 PM
Not complaining, just stating the obvious...

Silverback
09-19-2013, 09:56 PM
The EPR system will never be fixed until people start to address the root problem. The root problem is not the "supervisor rating correctly". As long as you have a rating system that assigns a number to a person, you will always have inflation.

The problem is the entire AF SYSTEM is broke. If an Airman is rated a 4, which is above average, why is that Airmen not even CONSIDERED for a special duty? The AF closes so many doors on "above average" performers, yet turns around and says "a 4 is actually a great rating!". And then they wonder why the special duty process is broke. "These people were the best of the best, they all had 5 EPRs... whay are they sexually assaulting all the trainees?"

Promote / Don't Promote. This should be the only "rating" on the EPR. You would either get max points that EPR cycle for WAPS, or you would get 0 (effectivly enabling the do not promote). Individuals would then have to actually READ the EPR to determine the best possible canidate, instead of vetting through numbers.

The 1 thru 5 system is garbage, as was the 1 thru 9.

I have to agree with you. The entire EPR process is subjective. Every rater has a difference of opinion. I think we would have a better work force if the entire AF was able to focus primarily on the job. Unfortunately, the EPR is filled with a lot of box checks.

When it comes to promotions, the EPR should be taken out of there. You either are promotion eligible or you not.

Tank82
09-19-2013, 10:24 PM
I have to agree with you. The entire EPR process is subjective. Every rater has a difference of opinion. I think we would have a better work force if the entire AF was able to focus primarily on the job. Unfortunately, the EPR is filled with a lot of box checks.

When it comes to promotions, the EPR should be taken out of there. You either are promotion eligible or you not.

Agree. The subjective part is what I was trying to get to.

Let's say you have SSgt A who works at a high tempo base. There is a severe manning shortage in his/her shop, thus requiring him/her to directly supervise 13 troops. He/She has the most efficient section in the squadron and always exceedes deadlines, yet most of his time is spent dealing with troop issues. He/She has not completed their CCAF, and in the past reporting period has not taken any classes. Their supervisor commends him/her for their job performance, yet does not rate as a 5 because there were no classes taken and he/she has a couple of "problem" troops. Recives a 4, above average but not "best of the best". Do they deserve a 4? Sure.

SSgt B (same career field) is at a small MUNS base in an office job with no troops and a total of five personnel in their section. They have taken one class in the the past reporting period and has volunteered for two squadron functions. Their section has no issues and always meets deadlines. Rated a 5. Do they deserve it? Sure.

Obviously, SSgt A has a lot more responsibility to burden and is managing his/her time in order to complete the mission while on top of that, maintaining the most efficient section in the squadron. Yet now they have to WAPS test against SSgt B, who happened to have an easy job enviroment.

How is this fair again???

UH1FE
09-19-2013, 11:19 PM
EPR's are inflated because of O-6's making you justify a 4 instead of making you justify a 5!

UH1FE
09-19-2013, 11:22 PM
0-6s don't see EPRs on TSgt and below...generally.

All mine have been to the O-6 level since I put on TSgt and I'm not an ass kissing yes man.

Tank82
09-19-2013, 11:23 PM
EPR states

4. Training Requirements (For SSgt/TSgt also CONSIDER PME, Off-duty Education, Technical Growth, Upgrade Training)
CONSIDER Upgrade, Ancillary, OJT and Readiness.

Where does it say off-duty education is required and if not accomplished a mark down is required?
There are many other areas other than just off-duty education to CONSIDER

I was just trying to paint a very broad picture huge brushstrokes. I know there are a lot of things to CONSIDER on the EPR. Maybe SSgt A's supervisor considers off-duty education more important than other considerations, hence the subjectivity.

Tank82
09-19-2013, 11:40 PM
I'm confused...

It seems, you would like the ability to subjectively rate SSgt A higher because he has a harder job...yet you imply that subjectivity is what makes this unfair?

I actually said sure, they deserved their respective ratings. I wouldn't challenge the ratings if both these EPRs came across my desk. Would I question both the supervisors... yes, but only to let them see from a different perspective. The part I think is unfair IS the subjectivity... of the supervisor. Even going thru these forums, There may be more of a % that thinks SSgt A should be rated a 5 over SSgt B, or vice versa. The only way ratings will ever work is if the AF makes a clear cut set of standards to obtain each rating, and doesn't leave those standards up to the supervisor, and that will not or SHOULD NOT ever happen.

Rusty Jones
09-20-2013, 12:00 AM
The Navy uses quotas. The aspects of "fairness" that you're talking about, supposedly, gets sorted out at selection boards; starting for when you go up for E7. In other words, the board might look at a MSgt serving as an MTI with a 4 EPR more favorably than a MSgt passing out basketballs at the gym with a 5 EPR.

Chief_KO
09-20-2013, 12:14 PM
Allow unfavorable comments...(without the report being a referral)
Example: While Johnny meets requirements for OJT, ancillary training, etc. he flat out refuses to do anymore than what is required (self-study, researching TOs, etc). Member is rated as meets, Allow the rater to clearly state this:
--Member only completed mandated training requirements

Example: Johnny is an average technician, only able to complete the easiest of troubleshooting/repair tasks:
-- Member struggles with system skills; only able to complete easiest of tasks

Other lines are left blank.

Pullinteeth
09-20-2013, 12:28 PM
Had an EPR kicked back because there was white space and needed more #s to support a 5. He is really one of my best but his production took a dive this FY and this is a #s game...gave him a 4...

DWWSWWD
09-20-2013, 01:20 PM
Anyone ever see the dealio on AFMentor regarding board scores for E-8/9? Not sure if it's still there. Board scores range from 6-10 and this thing says for a 9 for instance that you'd won a MAJCOM level award for the period, you are involved in xx number of things, you are clearly above your peers as quantified by xx. A 6 is the lowest board score... You have no CCAF or are missing PME. You've had administrative action etc. If there were quotas, they'd need to be accompanied by something quantifiable to hold CCs to. If not, base x gets all 5s and base y gets 4 for the same performance. Not saying I need anyone to tell me what a 5 looks like....

A parting thought... When leaders don't lead we get waist measurements. We get PT tests and mandatory referral EPRs. We also get roll call and EPR quotas. If at the tactical level, we aren't fat, we give people the ratings they earn and we engage them in person to find out what's going on in their lives, we wouldn't have folks trying to fix our units from the Pentagon.

DWWSWWD
09-20-2013, 01:29 PM
You do acknowledge that raters rater (e7 and above) and commanders are culpable right?

Absolutely. Along with formal leaders, informal leaders and peer leaders from E-4/5 and 6.

DWWSWWD
09-20-2013, 01:46 PM
I tend to blame people in charge. As you know raters rater can change epr rating and commanders can non concur. Definitely the easier way. Blame someone else I mean. I got rolled once on one of these deals and it made me take a look at myself. I got to know the boss' expectations better, I became more articulate, more attentive to detail and gave my folks clearer expectations and better written illustration of where they stood relative to them. I never got rolled on another EPR though I did on decs a few times. :-) Decorations are sometimes like the candy jar in the CCs office. "Been here three years? Have one on your way out."

Silverback
09-20-2013, 09:14 PM
There is one thing I know about Wing CC's, they are the most scared and paranoid people on the base. They are the ultimate "yes men" when HQ calls.

I don't understand why they are "yes men" most of them are already retirement eligible. They should be able to remain firm on their decisions. They must be trying not to upset anyone at HQ for that star.

DWWSWWD
09-20-2013, 09:22 PM
I don't understand why they are "yes men" most of them are already retirement eligible. They should be able to remain firm on their decisions. They must be trying not to upset anyone at HQ for that star. Before everyone jumps on this bandwagon, who can provide instances of a Wing CC being afraid to make a decision? What are we talking about here? At my last job I sat in every week with the Wing CC, Group CCs and Group Chiefs. I saw some concessions, some compromise and even some things that I would have done differently but I never saw a yes man. These were frank discussions of problems that often went against a superior's preferred COA. Prior to that job, I wouldn't say I would have had enough first hand knowlege to speak to how a wing CC decides things. Anyone else here have almost daily interaction with a wing commander and as a result of that, can say they are all yes men?

CJSmith
09-21-2013, 11:49 AM
Anyone else here have almost daily interaction with a wing commander and as a result of that, can say they are all yes men?

Not a WG/CC but I use to work Group staff and sat in on many meetings the Group CC had. He was certainly not a yes man. That was my first experience to upper level leadership and it opened my eyes to a lot of stuff I've never seen before.

CJSmith
09-21-2013, 11:52 AM
I don't understand why you would re-write my quote just to argue about something I didn't say.

Nice try, if you didn't have "Last edited by" in your post then maybe you could argue that. Man up to your original posts.

RetC141BFCC
09-21-2013, 01:26 PM
What would you have EPRs do then?

I'm not sure I follow the point of having an annual evaluation of your performance, but being able to get promoted no matter what it says...sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I just think there needs to be some type of control mechanism on the ratings...whether that be quotas, or evaluator averages, or whatever it is...something that will required or induce raters to put limits on how many 5s and 4s they give out...I think that will be the "major change" they are talking about...personally, I've long been an advocate of quotas.

I remember when the APR system changed to the EPR system. The first couple of EPRs went thru the system and got kicked back. We had a lot of young SRA and A1Cs get 3 and 4 Eprs (unofficial quota.) I myself received a 4Epr. 1 year later it was back to firewall 5 Eprs. The following year no one in my squadron made SSgt or Tech. When you shop or squadron is the only one giving out a 3 and a 4 you screw your people. As far as Quotes go you think the good old boy network is bad now just what till quots come about. Just look at the quotas for Deployments decs

RetC141BFCC
09-21-2013, 01:50 PM
The Navy uses quotas. The aspects of "fairness" that you're talking about, supposedly, gets sorted out at selection boards; starting for when you go up for E7. In other words, the board might look at a MSgt serving as an MTI with a 4 EPR more favorably than a MSgt passing out basketballs at the gym with a 5 EPR.

Rusty
That might work for the Navy but the AF will threw you right in the non promote pile with a 4

Rusty Jones
09-21-2013, 06:55 PM
Rusty
That might work for the Navy but the AF will threw you right in the non promote pile with a 4

Not if 5's were limited to the top 20%, and 4's were limited to the next 30%. That would force the bar down.

sandsjames
09-21-2013, 08:21 PM
Not if 5's were limited to the top 20%, and 4's were limited to the next 30%. That would force the bar down.

But how do you do that? Each person in each career field is supposed to be rated against their peers. In some eyes, peers means everyone of the same rank. In others, it means everyone in the shop. Then there are some that judge it career field wide. Some even cross it over to airmen from other career fields. So where do you get your top 20%?

Chief_KO
09-22-2013, 03:16 AM
But how do you do that? Each person in each career field is supposed to be rated against their peers. In some eyes, peers means everyone of the same rank. In others, it means everyone in the shop. Then there are some that judge it career field wide. Some even cross it over to airmen from other career fields. So where do you get your top 20%?

It's easy.
1. Rate everyone in the same rank over the same period of time. Make the EPR close out at the respective PECD. Lets say a shop has 10 SSgts, all their reports will close out on the same date (PECD to TSgt). The rater (or raters) would be able to access them on the same playing field (time period). Natural, honest assessment will be the norm. One or two (20 percent) are heads and shoulders above the rest, 3-4 are very good, and 4-5 are just average...extrapolate that against all the ranks. The section/flight leadership would do the same. So, when the reports hit the sq level, the ratings are already there.
2. Since all are rated during the same period, and close out on the same date there will be no more shared bullets, where every SSgt "led project X"...obviously only 1 "led project X", the others did other tasks related to the project. White space and empty lines will be the norm (as the EPRs were originally) for those average performers.

It really is that simple...GS civilians close out on the same date, officers PRFs are on the same date and in the civilian world: appraisals close out on the same date. The sheer volume alone will eliminate most (if not all) of the creative writing getting back to simple achievement bullet statements.

SomeRandomGuy
09-22-2013, 03:40 AM
It's easy.
1. Rate everyone in the same rank over the same period of time. Make the EPR close out at the respective PECD. Lets say a shop has 10 SSgts, all their reports will close out on the same date (PECD to TSgt). The rater (or raters) would be able to access them on the same playing field (time period). Natural, honest assessment will be the norm. One or two (20 percent) are heads and shoulders above the rest, 3-4 are very good, and 4-5 are just average...extrapolate that against all the ranks. The section/flight leadership would do the same. So, when the reports hit the sq level, the ratings are already there.
2. Since all are rated during the same period, and close out on the same date there will be no more shared bullets, where every SSgt "led project X"...obviously only 1 "led project X", the others did other tasks related to the project. White space and empty lines will be the norm (as the EPRs were originally) for those average performers.

It really is that simple...GS civilians close out on the same date, officers PRFs are on the same date and in the civilian world: appraisals close out on the same date. The sheer volume alone will eliminate most (if not all) of the creative writing getting back to simple achievement bullet statements.

The only issue with this is who should handle disputes. Say that a shop has 50 troops total at the SrA level. They have a quota of 10 overall 5s, 15 overall 4s, then 25 overall 3 or lower. Let's say these troops are divided among 4 shops and about 15 different supervisors. Does each supervisor get a quota of 5s? If all of the 15 different supervisors submit 1 person as a 5 that means 10 of those ratings get knocked down. Then you have to take away some of the 4s to make room for people who were originally 5s. I think if asked most supervisors could easily rack and stack their troops. I am not so sure any superintendent or commander could accurately rack and stack their entire squadron. So it becomes an issue of how much pull each supervisor has. I guess that is not much different than the current system but still something worth considering.

akruse
09-22-2013, 06:45 AM
It's easy.
1. Rate everyone in the same rank over the same period of time. Make the EPR close out at the respective PECD. Lets say a shop has 10 SSgts, all their reports will close out on the same date (PECD to TSgt). The rater (or raters) would be able to access them on the same playing field (time period). Natural, honest assessment will be the norm. One or two (20 percent) are heads and shoulders above the rest, 3-4 are very good, and 4-5 are just average...extrapolate that against all the ranks. The section/flight leadership would do the same. So, when the reports hit the sq level, the ratings are already there.
2. Since all are rated during the same period, and close out on the same date there will be no more shared bullets, where every SSgt "led project X"...obviously only 1 "led project X", the others did other tasks related to the project. White space and empty lines will be the norm (as the EPRs were originally) for those average performers.

It really is that simple...GS civilians close out on the same date, officers PRFs are on the same date and in the civilian world: appraisals close out on the same date. The sheer volume alone will eliminate most (if not all) of the creative writing getting back to simple achievement bullet statements.

I'm on board with everything except for number 2 where you are implying (i think) that there will be less time spent on the "average" folk and their reports won't glow. I don't think it will ever happen. We spend so much time wordsmithing EVERY report now that I don't think we can shift away from that without some form of radical change. Maybe the closeout date cutoff will force that change though. Who knows.

Chief_KO
09-22-2013, 12:26 PM
I don't think a formal quota is required...evaluating over the same time period will provide the rater, raters rater, & chain of command with that capability. It will be surprising easy with that one simple change (which would have to be phased in over a couple years). Each Airman would be evaluated on what they did during the year, again by eliminating bullet sharing (as far as who "led") will go far. And if raters are actually able to write unfavorable comments "-Struggled with complex tasks" "- Completed mandatory training tasks only", without a report being an automatic referral it would make it much easier to properly rate. My #1 problem I had as a Chief was receiving an EPR with no white space with strong bullets with a rating of meets or above average. The word picture does not match the rating. PME teaches and we all stressed positive, strong writing that no one know how to right weak bullets. And yes, I did have to assist each Commander that the white space and weak bullets were appropriate.

I also think that the sheer volume of reports will cut down the creative writing. That and the simple fact that bullet sharing will no longer be possible. 10 SSgt EPRs...only 1 "led or directed project X". As it is now, since all 10 closeout on different dates all 10 (or at least 5) will have an EPR with the exact same (or nearly the same bullet). This would still happen, but that bullet would be as a "worked project x" vice "led or directed project x".

They key to this, is on the ratee. Since all would closeout on the same date, the ratee will really have to put forth an effort to provide the rater with a list of what they did over the year. Yes, the rater should know, but that is not always possible. If SSgt X cannot provide enough accomplishments to adequately fill the report and support a "5", then it is pretty easy.

Personally, I would like to see stratification go away (the above changes would replace stratification) and eliminate promotion statements (same reason) and future job assignment recommendations (useless).

Examples must be provided in the AFI or supporting training materials that clearly show how those types of reports should be written. And the Sq Chief should be the authority on what the EPR is supposed to be. It is our evaluation system, our promotion system, our assignment system. We understand it, Commanders do not. This should also be in the AFI or supporting training materials.

sandsjames
09-22-2013, 12:42 PM
It's easy.
1. Rate everyone in the same rank over the same period of time. Make the EPR close out at the respective PECD. Lets say a shop has 10 SSgts, all their reports will close out on the same date (PECD to TSgt). The rater (or raters) would be able to access them on the same playing field (time period). Natural, honest assessment will be the norm. One or two (20 percent) are heads and shoulders above the rest, 3-4 are very good, and 4-5 are just average...extrapolate that against all the ranks. The section/flight leadership would do the same. So, when the reports hit the sq level, the ratings are already there.
2. Since all are rated during the same period, and close out on the same date there will be no more shared bullets, where every SSgt "led project X"...obviously only 1 "led project X", the others did other tasks related to the project. White space and empty lines will be the norm (as the EPRs were originally) for those average performers.

It really is that simple...GS civilians close out on the same date, officers PRFs are on the same date and in the civilian world: appraisals close out on the same date. The sheer volume alone will eliminate most (if not all) of the creative writing getting back to simple achievement bullet statements.

But what about small shops? Most shops I've been in are 10 or less people. Maybe 1 Master (not so much anymore), 2 Techs, 2 Staff, and 4 or 5 Airmen. So now you're rating only 2 people of the same rank. Is it one 5 and one 4? That seems kind of unfair that 1 guy HAS to get a 4, even if the both of them are great troops. Or if you have a shop with 1 guy in a rank, is that guy automatically a 5? Big shops are much easier to deal with in this situation than small shops.

Also, stating that "honest assessment will be the norm" is crazy. I've got 2 SSgt's. They work together. Nobody is really leading or following on the job. They are both doing the same thing. They both schedule generator runs, they both do oil changes, they both have the exact same responsibilities. They are still going to "share" bullets (I've never understood why sharing bullets is an issue when people do the same thing).

imnohero
09-22-2013, 12:52 PM
As sandjames says, what works in big units, doesn't work in small units. I was assigned to a "detachment" as the sole AF person at an Army Base...I don't have peers, what rating do I get?

Quite frankly, no single system is going to meet every possible situation and variation, as long as it contains a subjective "peer rating" or relies on subjective interpretation of what is or isn't a rating that matches the writing. Just think abou the way you are talking about it..."strong bullet" vs. "weak bullet".

The AFI should spell out clear, distinct objective standards for ratings. As long as it doesn't the EPR system won't work. Relying on the squadron chief to be the "expert" only invites different standards at different units.

sandsjames
09-22-2013, 01:14 PM
As sandjames says, what works in big units, doesn't work in small units. I was assigned to a "detachment" as the sole AF person at an Army Base...I don't have peers, what rating do I get?

Quite frankly, no single system is going to meet every possible situation and variation, as long as it contains a subjective "peer rating" or relies on subjective interpretation of what is or isn't a rating that matches the writing. Just think abou the way you are talking about it..."strong bullet" vs. "weak bullet".

The AFI should spell out clear, distinct objective standards for ratings. As long as it doesn't the EPR system won't work. Relying on the squadron chief to be the "expert" only invites different standards at different units.

Yep...should say "In order to get a top rating, you MUST complete these objectives" (of course variations would still need to be allowed if certain things aren't available at your assignment.

Mr. Happy
09-22-2013, 02:15 PM
Scrap the whole 1-5 rating standard on EPRs. I think the way they do the board scoring for SMSgt and CMSgt could be incorporated at the unit level for annual EPRs. Although not a perfect system (what one is?), I think they tend to give brutal honesty (sometimes we're not as great as we think we are). If they had the rater, rater's rater and the commander each assess a 6.0 - 10 score (in .5 point increments like a SNCO board) on each EPR, you would start to see inflation drop quickly and hopefully give more realistic assessments on individuals. So instead of a single rater assigning a "5" worth 135 WAPS points, the actual value of the individual EPR would now be based on the combined total of scores given by all three X 15 (like the board calculation). All three would rate the EPR based on the merits of what the bullets say and any other documented quality force issues for the period (e.g., UIF, Article 15s, etc). One small tweak I would have is not impose the rule where the scores of the three need to be within 1 of each other. That is, if the rater gives a 10, and the rater's rater gives an 8, and the commander scores the troop a 7, then it's calculated as is and the EPR for that rating period would be assessed a 375 score out of a potential 450. With three people affecting the score of the EPR versus the one rater, you might start seeing a truer picture since the rater's rater and commander have a broader perspective of where troops actually stack up to others in the unit.

imported_StandardsAMust
09-22-2013, 02:41 PM
Scrap the whole 1-5 rating standard on EPRs. I think the way they do the board scoring for SMSgt and CMSgt could be incorporated at the unit level for annual EPRs. Although not a perfect system (what one is?), I think they tend to give brutal honesty (sometimes we're not as great as we think we are). If they had the rater, rater's rater and the commander each assess a 6.0 - 10 score (in .5 point increments like a SNCO board) on each EPR, you would start to see inflation drop quickly and hopefully give more realistic assessments on individuals. So instead of a single rater assigning a "5" worth 135 WAPS points, the actual value of the individual EPR would now be based on the combined total of scores given by all three X 15 (like the board calculation). All three would rate the EPR based on the merits of what the bullets say and any other documented quality force issues for the period (e.g., UIF, Article 15s, etc). One small tweak I would have is not impose the rule where the scores of the three need to be within 1 of each other. That is, if the rater gives a 10, and the rater's rater gives an 8, and the commander scores the troop a 7, then it's calculated as is and the EPR for that rating period would be assessed a 375 score out of a potential 450. With three people affecting the score of the EPR versus the one rater, you might start seeing a truer picture since the rater's rater and commander have a broader perspective of where troops actually stack up to others in the unit.

Interesting concept indeed...I like the fact that the supervisor can pick one rating, the rater's rater can pick one and the CC can pick one...then, a simple average is computed and viola...no more non-concurs.

If a quota system is introduced, then all EPRs should close out on same day, then submitted before a base-wide board to be racked and stacked. This way...all SSgt EPRs are reviewed so this solves the problem with big and small shops. The issue is peer rating, but let's be honest, it isn't working now.

sandsjames
09-22-2013, 02:53 PM
Interesting concept indeed...I like the fact that the supervisor can pick one rating, the rater's rater can pick one and the CC can pick one...then, a simple average is computed and viola...no more non-concurs.

If a quota system is introduced, then all EPRs should close out on same day, then submitted before a base-wide board to be racked and stacked. This way...all SSgt EPRs are reviewed so this solves the problem with big and small shops. The issue is peer rating, but let's be honest, it isn't working now.

I don't like the idea of add. rater and CC rating. They just don't know what the troop is doing on a day to day basis.

imported_StandardsAMust
09-22-2013, 03:19 PM
I don't like the idea of add. rater and CC rating. They just don't know what the troop is doing on a day to day basis.

I think most CCs would go along with the supervisor's rating...the times they are most likely to stroke their pen heavy is when they have had to take administrative actions and the supervisor rates high.

sandsjames
09-22-2013, 04:15 PM
I think most CCs would go along with the supervisor's rating...the times they are most likely to stroke their pen heavy is when they have had to take administrative actions and the supervisor rates high.

That's why there needs to be something in the AFI saying that if you have unfavorable information then it WILL be marked down a certain amount. Then there is no arguing by a supervisor who is trying to do his troop a favor.

imnohero
09-22-2013, 05:00 PM
Believe it or not, I understand the resistance to writing objective standards. How do you differentiate between "meets standards" and "above average" for something like dress and appearance?

You airman shows up to work with a clean wrinkle free uniform, his boots are clean and polished (not spit shined), you never have to tell him to shave or get a haircut, he doesn't show up with earrings, tattoos, or other violations of the AFI. In fact, he generally so squared away D&A wise, you never even notice one way or the other. Does he meet standards or is he exceeding them?

It's a little easier with things like training, especially CDCs where progress is timed and documented. Finish early and get top grades on unit and final exams...pretty clearly exceeds. Finish on time with just passing scores...meets.

How many write ups in Base Housing for your SSgt no longer meets standards for maintenance of govt. facilities? Do you also mark him down in leadership or followership?

Objective standards are tough to sort out...but I argue it's necessary.

sandsjames
09-22-2013, 05:46 PM
Believe it or not, I understand the resistance to writing objective standards. How do you differentiate between "meets standards" and "above average" for something like dress and appearance?

You airman shows up to work with a clean wrinkle free uniform, his boots are clean and polished (not spit shined), you never have to tell him to shave or get a haircut, he doesn't show up with earrings, tattoos, or other violations of the AFI. In fact, he generally so squared away D&A wise, you never even notice one way or the other. Does he meet standards or is he exceeding them?

It's a little easier with things like training, especially CDCs where progress is timed and documented. Finish early and get top grades on unit and final exams...pretty clearly exceeds. Finish on time with just passing scores...meets.

How many write ups in Base Housing for your SSgt no longer meets standards for maintenance of govt. facilities? Do you also mark him down in leadership or followership?

Objective standards are tough to sort out...but I argue it's necessary.

Agree...it's tough...what I've seen people do is use someone correcting someone else about standards as a way to rate as exceeds, but in my mind, that falls into the leadership block. One of the MAJOR problems with the EPR is that the categories overlap too much. If I can give someone a "mark down" in the standards block, then I can also justify (if they are in any sort of leadership position) also marking them down in the leadership block. It shouldn't be that way. Same problem with PT. I've seen it affect the leadership and the standards block. If they insist on having certain categories, the categories should not be overlapping.

Chief_KO
09-23-2013, 12:15 AM
But what about small shops? Most shops I've been in are 10 or less people. Maybe 1 Master (not so much anymore), 2 Techs, 2 Staff, and 4 or 5 Airmen. So now you're rating only 2 people of the same rank. Is it one 5 and one 4? That seems kind of unfair that 1 guy HAS to get a 4, even if the both of them are great troops. Or if you have a shop with 1 guy in a rank, is that guy automatically a 5? Big shops are much easier to deal with in this situation than small shops.

Also, stating that "honest assessment will be the norm" is crazy. I've got 2 SSgt's. They work together. Nobody is really leading or following on the job. They are both doing the same thing. They both schedule generator runs, they both do oil changes, they both have the exact same responsibilities. They are still going to "share" bullets (I've never understood why sharing bullets is an issue when people do the same thing).

Again, you rate within your span of control. Does the shop fall under a flight or section? Who is the raters rater? There is another level of comparison to be made. Again, my point was there is no logical reason for mandated quotas, your scenario is one example why it's a bad idea. Are both SSgts equal? or is one better than the other? If equal, ratings are the same, if one is better than the other, the ratings are different. My point on sharing bullets: Yes, if both repaired engines that bullet would be similar: "--Expertly repaired xx engines; saved $xx in replacement costs--xx% mission uptime" The differences would be the xx's. What would disappear is what happens now when reports close out months apart from each other, the "Directed project X....or "Led X Airmen" when in reality both SSgts could not do that task (there is only 1 leader).

Chief_KO
09-23-2013, 12:22 AM
As sandjames says, what works in big units, doesn't work in small units. I was assigned to a "detachment" as the sole AF person at an Army Base...I don't have peers, what rating do I get?

Quite frankly, no single system is going to meet every possible situation and variation, as long as it contains a subjective "peer rating" or relies on subjective interpretation of what is or isn't a rating that matches the writing. Just think abou the way you are talking about it..."strong bullet" vs. "weak bullet".

The AFI should spell out clear, distinct objective standards for ratings. As long as it doesn't the EPR system won't work. Relying on the squadron chief to be the "expert" only invites different standards at different units.

I totally agree that there is no one system that in and of itself will be perfect, but the very last thing you should ever want was for the AF to put in mandated, distinct, objective standards for ratings. For those that harp against square filling, imagine what would happen if the AF put specific requirements for Clearly Among the Best.

PT: 85 or above, Community Involvement: 100 volunteer hours, Education & Self Improvement: 4 college-level semester courses or 75 CEUs, Dress & Appearance: Mess Dress, Specialty Badge, Ribbons on all blues combinations, etc. etc. etc.

If you want the AF to give you exacting requirements be very careful, you just might get it...

imnohero
09-23-2013, 12:54 AM
I totally agree that there is no one system that in and of itself will be perfect, but the very last thing you should ever want was for the AF to put in mandated, distinct, objective standards for ratings. For those that harp against square filling, imagine what would happen if the AF put specific requirements for Clearly Among the Best.

PT: 85 or above, Community Involvement: 100 volunteer hours, Education & Self Improvement: 4 college-level semester courses or 75 CEUs, Dress & Appearance: Mess Dress, Specialty Badge, Ribbons on all blues combinations, etc. etc. etc.

If the goal is to solve the inflation problem, this would fix it. What it also would do is keep Top3 from imposing completely subjective and arbitrary standards.


If you want the AF to give you exacting requirements be very careful, you just might get it...

Well, I won't get it. The FUBAR that EPRs have become is part of the reason that I retired. Actually, that's not true. It was the attitude of leadership toward EPRs that was too much for me.

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 12:56 AM
Again, you rate within your span of control. Does the shop fall under a flight or section? Who is the raters rater? There is another level of comparison to be made. Again, my point was there is no logical reason for mandated quotas, your scenario is one example why it's a bad idea. Are both SSgts equal? or is one better than the other? If equal, ratings are the same, if one is better than the other, the ratings are different. My point on sharing bullets: Yes, if both repaired engines that bullet would be similar: "--Expertly repaired xx engines; saved $xx in replacement costs--xx% mission uptime" The differences would be the xx's. What would disappear is what happens now when reports close out months apart from each other, the "Directed project X....or "Led X Airmen" when in reality both SSgts could not do that task (there is only 1 leader).

I agree, only 1/per task can lead. So what needs to happen first is to have SNCOs reviewing these EPRs stop kicking back EPRs because you have a SSgt or TSgt who was "part of a team". They pretty much force your hand..."strongly suggest" that an NCO EPR should not be about being part of a team...it should be about leading. In a shop with only a certain amount of people, not every can lead, yet all of them are expected to. So fix this, then we'll fix the EPR after that.

Chief_KO
09-23-2013, 01:02 AM
I agree, only 1/per task can lead. So what needs to happen first is to have SNCOs reviewing these EPRs stop kicking back EPRs because you have a SSgt or TSgt who was "part of a team". They pretty much force your hand..."strongly suggest" that an NCO EPR should not be about being part of a team...it should be about leading. In a shop with only a certain amount of people, not every can lead, yet all of them are expected to. So fix this, then we'll fix the EPR after that.

I totally agree, and was guilty of that. But I established two-way communication and learned who the leaders & non-leaders were. So if I questioned a NCO (or SNCO) EPR that was lacking the leadership the section chief or flight chief gave me the 411.
But, if all the SSgt / TSgt EPRs closed out at the same respective time...fixed!

Chief_KO
09-23-2013, 01:08 AM
If the goal is to solve the inflation problem, this would fix it. What it also would do is keep Top 3 from imposing completely subjective and arbitrary standards.

I agree, my point is that it would create a worse square-filling environment than we have today. Pretty much every downward-directed AF level fix is worse than the problem itself: most recent example Developmental Special Duties.

imnohero
09-23-2013, 01:18 AM
The question is whether "square filling" is worse than the status quo?

I am not convinced that quotas are any real solution to the EPR problem, except in the sense that it will put better numbers "up on the board" regard inflation. If that's all leadership is after...then quotas will fit the bill. If they are after equitable honest ratings, quotas won't solve that problem.

Mr. Happy
09-23-2013, 02:32 AM
I don't like the idea of add. rater and CC rating. They just don't know what the troop is doing on a day to day basis.

Them directly observing the troop day-to-day misses the point of the recommendation. Just like a SNCO board doesn't observe the day-to-day performance of the person of the record they are scoring, it would be the same for a rater's rater and commander scoring an EPR at the unit level. They would be scoring the merits of the EPR content and documented disciplinary issues during the period. Besides, as the head of a 75 person shop myself, I may not directly see all of them in action day-to-day, but I definitely know who my top, average and mediocre performers are in my shop. The commander would also be scoring the merits of the EPR content and not necessarily the observed performance of the troop. If you have three different people influencing the value of the EPR score, you will probably get a more accurate picture than if just a supervisor was providing the sole rating score.

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 11:44 AM
Them directly observing the troop day-to-day misses the point of the recommendation. Just like a SNCO board doesn't observe the day-to-day performance of the person of the record they are scoring, it would be the same for a rater's rater and commander scoring an EPR at the unit level. They would be scoring the merits of the EPR content and documented disciplinary issues during the period. Besides, as the head of a 75 person shop myself, I may not directly see all of them in action day-to-day, but I definitely know who my top, average and mediocre performers are in my shop. The commander would also be scoring the merits of the EPR content and not necessarily the observed performance of the troop. If you have three different people influencing the value of the EPR score, you will probably get a more accurate picture than if just a supervisor was providing the sole rating score.

Right, so if the Commander is judging the content, it still comes down to who writes it the best, which means that supervisors will still indulge, knowing the Commander will be looking closely at it.

One of the biggest problems we have is the "leadership" of a flight/squadron returning the forms for content. I've had the following happen several times. I write a 4, submit it with bullets that match a 4. The form comes back to me will comments like "Weak bullet", etc. No shit it's a weak bullet. That is on purpose in order who help justify the "mark down".

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If we (I say we, but really don't care because I'm not part of it anymore) stay with a 1-5 system, 3 needs to be the standard. Justifications need to happen for mark-ups, not for mark downs, as the system currently requires.

BOSS302
09-23-2013, 12:23 PM
We received an E-mail earlier in the week that ordered everyone to cease putting $$$ earned on EPRs due to it being seen as coercive. Here's the justification used:

From AFI 36-2406

1.12.5. Potential Discriminatory Factors and/or Information.

1.12.5.4. Meeting Financial Goals for Combined Federal Campaign. Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 950, Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations, Section 108 Preventing coercive activity, subparagraph (g) which prohibits “Using as a factor in a supervisor’s performance appraisal the results of the solicitation in the supervisor’s unit or organization.

Thus, no more "sold 287 breakfast burritos--rais'd +$1K twrds sqdn morale" or "CFC shop rep--touched 54 prsnl/4 flts--ensur'd $2.5K charity donations collect'd!"

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 12:42 PM
We received an E-mail earlier in the week that ordered everyone to cease putting $$$ earned on EPRs due to it being seen as coercive. Here's the justification used:

From AFI 36-2406

1.12.5. Potential Discriminatory Factors and/or Information.

1.12.5.4. Meeting Financial Goals for Combined Federal Campaign. Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 950, Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations, Section 108 Preventing coercive activity, subparagraph (g) which prohibits “Using as a factor in a supervisor’s performance appraisal the results of the solicitation in the supervisor’s unit or organization.

Thus, no more "sold 287 breakfast burritos--rais'd +$1K twrds sqdn morale" or "CFC shop rep--touched 54 prsnl/4 flts--ensur'd $2.5K charity donations collect'd!"

Great move...those numbers are so arbitrary...a person can't control the amount of money 1) the equipment they work on is worth and 2) the amount of money made at fundraisers. The numbers are useless, and usually made up with no way to verify.

DWWSWWD
09-23-2013, 01:24 PM
We received an E-mail earlier in the week that ordered everyone to cease putting $$$ earned on EPRs due to it being seen as coercive. Here's the justification used:

From AFI 36-2406

1.12.5. Potential Discriminatory Factors and/or Information.

1.12.5.4. Meeting Financial Goals for Combined Federal Campaign. Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 950, Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations, Section 108 Preventing coercive activity, subparagraph (g) which prohibits “Using as a factor in a supervisor’s performance appraisal the results of the solicitation in the supervisor’s unit or organization.

Thus, no more "sold 287 breakfast burritos--rais'd +$1K twrds sqdn morale" or "CFC shop rep--touched 54 prsnl/4 flts--ensur'd $2.5K charity donations collect'd!"

Huh. I don't read it this way. I think this is geared toward individual contributions which I've never allowed anyway. E.g. "Bob, want to give a shitload of cash to CFC this year? It would look great in your EPR that's coming up." I don't thing leading a burrito sale or helping your unit reach 150% of its goal is an issue.

efmbman
09-23-2013, 01:30 PM
Great move...those numbers are so arbitrary...a person can't control the amount of money 1) the equipment they work on is worth and 2) the amount of money made at fundraisers. The numbers are useless, and usually made up with no way to verify.

I am not a fan of US Army Recruiting Command, but I will give credit where credit is due. In 2007(?), the HQ published a pam which listed approved duty descriptions for each of the possible leadership positions within the command. Many complained these descriptions were too generic, but it worked out well. An NCO that is a Large Station Commander (the station is large, not the NCO!) has the same leadership responsiblities and expectations of the other 300 Large Station Commanders. There is a seperate area in which the rater can list Areas of Special Emphasis such as a specialized mission requirement (doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc). My impression, which was later confirmed when I was in Operations, was that this eliminated a great deal of fluff.

Recruiting Command has the luxery of having cookie-cutter positions, however. I'm not so sure it could be done elsewhere. But it did prevent raters from "claiming" their guy was responsible for more money than the rest just because they could.

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 01:43 PM
I am not a fan of US Army Recruiting Command, but I will give credit where credit is due. In 2007(?), the HQ published a pam which listed approved duty descriptions for each of the possible leadership positions within the command. Many complained these descriptions were too generic, but it worked out well. An NCO that is a Large Station Commander (the station is large, not the NCO!) has the same leadership responsiblities and expectations of the other 300 Large Station Commanders. There is a seperate area in which the rater can list Areas of Special Emphasis such as a specialized mission requirement (doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc). My impression, which was later confirmed when I was in Operations, was that this eliminated a great deal of fluff.

Recruiting Command has the luxery of having cookie-cutter positions, however. I'm not so sure it could be done elsewhere. But it did prevent raters from "claiming" their guy was responsible for more money than the rest just because they could.

Kind of the same deal when I was a tech school instructor. You can only teach as many students as come through the school. TSgts are doing the same thing as SrA. There are no variables (other than student pass rates, but even then, very few ever fail out). So there is no way to distinguish yourself via the job duty. Hell, even additional duties don't come into play.

20+Years
09-23-2013, 02:29 PM
I honestly respect Chief_Ko's opinions, we would be stupid to not listen to our folks who have been around since the dinosaur age... but... I don't see having all EPRs closing on the same date as being the perfect fix. I see that it could help in shops with multiple people of the same Rank, same AFSC, in the same shop. For my AFSC however, I have people doing 30 different jobs in 12 different duty sections. Some are one deep positions, while only a few have 4-5 folks doing the same job.

Its the same thing I saw as an Airman. I recieved a 4 (honestly deserved though, I've always been a 4 in my mind), but my buddy down the hall recieved a 5 and he was just like me. Different flights, different supervisors, even if our EPRs closed at the same time, who makes sure his was marked down or mine up? ?This is the exact reason for the inflation. In my AFSC, workers can be assigned to different SQs. Who ensures the Amn in that Sq gets the same rating as the Amn in this Sq for equal work?

Until we can ENSURE ALL Amn get the same rating no matter where they work... inflation will continue. I'll say it: I'm not gonna hurt my Amn if I know another supervisor is giving thiers a 5 for the same work/ethic, ect.

We need a system where inflation can't come into play. I hate box-filling though. I'll go with no points to testing, only ready/not-ready. Go/no-go. Keep the 1-5. Then... the bullets will not be so important, so the truth might be told for future jobs, special duties, ect.

imnohero
09-23-2013, 02:42 PM
It would also help a great deal if there weren't arbitrary style restrictions put on bullets. One line only, dashes instead of commas, must have $ impacts, etc.

Why can't I write this:
- Dependable NCO, accurate and timely duty performance, completes tasks without supervision, mission achieved
-- As crew chief, responsible for 5 airplanes, coordinates preflight activites, 100 local training and 200 mission sorties

Instead of this bullet:
- Dep NCO, accurate, timely, no sup. needed -- launch 100 lcl trng, 200 msn sorties -- Wng Msn never fails!

Only to have the second kicked back 15 times as it goes through the change because the new CC wants semi-colons instead of -- or the new "acceptable abbreviation" of supervision is "supv" not "sup."

Idiocy.

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 02:48 PM
I despise $ impacts...I do like the rest though.

I just don't think $ impacts play in, unless the person ACTUALLY did something to save the AF money, and you should have to show proof. I can't count the number of times I saved the AF millions, when all I really did is do my job.

Other than that, money shouldn't play a part. I don't care if you work on $10k equipment or $2M equipment...the individual cannot control that. All that matters is that you work on what you have and do a good job...

Rusty Jones
09-23-2013, 04:18 PM
I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm "for" rankings, because I'm not. I think that the Marine Corps has the best system; where promotions points are given based on how far above the average rating you are. So, the higher the average; the less possible promotion points that the above average performers can receive.

I think that force-distribution based performance appraisals are evil. The Navy has had them since 1996 (I came in, in 1999) many feel that the current EVAL/FITREP system has changed culture for the worse.

The biggest problem is... if you get an Early Promote (EP - equivalent to the AF's 5) your final mark is not worked for and earned. It's competed for and won.

This actually creates a disincentive for teamwork, or any other situation where people other than yourself look good. And it also encourages backstabbing. You've gotta get that EP, and make sure that other people don't.

The other problem... boards are established locally to rank-order those being evaluated. So what ends up happening is this: you'll write an EPR on your guy and send it up. A group of SNCO's will do a ranking board. The problem is... the way they do the ranking board will have absolutely SHIT to do with the EPR you wrote. In fact, what's going to happen is they're not even going to look at the EPR's first. They're going to make a list of names of the people in the group being evaluated, and just simply rank them. And THEN they'll look at the EPRs and adjust the marks to reflect their rankings.

Some people have a policy of making their people write their own EVAL/FITREPs (which I hate - because it's pure laziness on the part of the rater), and I remember the time where I wrote my own. Of course, in the remarks section... I wrote my biggest accomplishments.

My LPO comes back to me, and asks me if there was anything else I did; and told me to send it to him in email.

He was a shady dude, and I knew what he was doing. There was someone else in our department that he was going to put in for the EP over me... and his intent was to not use the bullets I submitted. He wanted to replace them with "lesser" bullets, in order to justify ranking the other guy over me. So I didn't send him shit. I knew that I wasn't going to get the EP anyway, so why do the work to help him justify it?

As soon as our EVALs came back, I saw what he did: myself and the other guy in my department did so many similar things, but they used more colorful language and exclamation points, bold letters, caps, etc - to make what he did look more exciting. Meanwhile, on mine, they simply said the same thing in plain, straightforward English.

Mind you, I'm not saying that it is or isn't a better alternative over what the AF has now... because the Navy had something similar before 1996. What I AM saying is that, I really don't know what I'd choose if I was forced to - because both suck.

Most civilian employers find the BARS method to be the best.

If it were up to me, here's how it would work - the performance appraisals would have nothing to do with promotion to paygrades that do not require a selection board.

All appraisals would consist of a write-up ONLY. No quantified performance marks, averages, scores, etc. None of that. Just the write-up.

Before the exam comes up, each unit would have a total number of performance points that they can spread among the people of the same paygrade going up for the next as they see fit. The total number of points that each unit has, is based on the number of people in that particular paygrade who are assigned.

For promotions that require selection boards, they have the write-ups to read - and they won't be able to form a pre-mature opinion on someone based on arbitrary numbers at the bottom of the page.

Stalwart
09-23-2013, 05:40 PM
Some people have a policy of making their people write their own EVAL/FITREPs (which I hate - because it's pure laziness on the part of the rater), and I remember the time where I wrote my own. Of course, in the remarks section... I wrote my biggest accomplishment.

I completely agree. I will have people submit an eval input sheet ('brag sheet') but let the first run at writting their eval be on their immediate supervisor. Having someone write their own eval (or award for that matter) is about one of the laziest things a leader can do.

Rusty Jones
09-23-2013, 05:49 PM
Not only that, but it's useless. It doesn't matter what you write - the boards at your command will have already decided where you rank anyway, before they even touch your draft.

Chief_KO
09-24-2013, 03:58 AM
I like the conversations we're all having. We all agree that our current system is not working and that there can never be a 100% perfect, error free system.

I did have two other thoughts that should be part of whatever the change will be.
Mandated punctuation. Decorations are that way...so are other official documents, why not the EPR? -Action; result--impact or -Action--impact or -Action; result...impact or -Action...impact Why not, let's eliminate on of the most contentious and waste of time arguments that changes with each change of command. Get rid of any other punctuation (no exclamation points!!!)
FM review: As Tak has pointed out many times (and he's right), only 1 person signs every single EPR in a unit, the Commander. As a Chief, I can make my recommendations all day long, once it gets to the CC, he/she has the last word. As much as I hate adding a bureaucratic step, as it is now the person who's supposed to be the career field expert, the base FM does not review the EPR to make sure it makes sense to that crowd. I've seen EPRs written by ops & intel that make no sense to me as a Comm Guy. That base Chief is the expert on his/her AFS and today has nearly zero control over the quality of the reports written on Airmen in his/her AFS. Not sure it this is really a good idea but not sure of another way to keep commanders in line regarding EPRs...

DWWSWWD
09-24-2013, 01:57 PM
FM review: As Tak has pointed out many times (and he's right), only 1 person signs every single EPR in a unit, the Commander. As a Chief, I can make my recommendations all day long, once it gets to the CC, he/she has the last word. As much as I hate adding a bureaucratic step, as it is now the person who's supposed to be the career field expert, the base FM does not review the EPR to make sure it makes sense to that crowd. Kind of surprised you'd suggest this. The promotion board is not made up of people from that career field. EPRs need less career field specific jargon, not more. Almost all of the meat should be crafted by someone closest to the Airman, not farther away. The base FM is frequently a MSgt that happens to be the highest ranking on the base in that career field. As a Chief, I don't think I need him between me and my teammates' EPRs.

Mastercone
09-24-2013, 05:02 PM
The APR/EPR reports have existed since the advent of the USAF in 1947. The problem with APR/EPR inflation really began with the WAPS system in 1971 because then, for the first time, the human element for promotion opportunities was eliminated an became based on computerized and scored events in an airman's career. APR/EPR inflation is more likely for no other reason than to avoid adversely affecting an airman's promotion opportunity which makes its use for promotions defective to a large extent.

Honestly, it would be difficult to imagine explaining to a subordinate that he or she received a 4 EPR because he or she was only the third best of the 8 individuals being supervised. There might be some consolation in that the airman receiving a four was told to cheer up because three of his or her peers were worse and received three EPRs. Is that the system you want?

Over the decades, the ONLY group that seems comfortable in spearheading the occasional effort to reinvent the ratings process and argue against ratings inflation are chiefs. Coincidentally, chiefs are the lone portion of the enlisted corps that will never have to submit to another promotion exam so it is easier to promote something that will never affect them or their careers.

What can be helpful is to see how the APR/EPR has evolved over the decades without taking my word for it. At least you can observe how much the BS has evolved over the decades. Believe me, there has been more BS with APRs/EPRs to the point of dysfunctionality. I have located some nifty APRs from the sixties that might make for good reading to see how it was done BEFORE the WAPS era:

ACTUAL APRs from 1960s -- FLICKR photo site:

FLICKR photo -- APR: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2538/3778657064_a0fe84a116_o.jpg

FLICKR photo -- APR: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2466/3778654110_90381b513d_o.jpg

FLICKR photo -- APR: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3587/3778662356_f80564255f_o.jpg

FLICKR photo -- APR: http://garydchance.com/mypictures/USAFSS/APR6405B.JPG

FLICKR photo -- APR: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2121/3778946702_099127b6b5_o.jpg

FLICKR photo -- APR: http://roncoleairforce.angelfire.com/APR_5-80.jpg

GOOGLE LINK TO GOOGLE IMAGES OF APRs/EPRs over the years -- LARGE FORMAT -- http://goo.gl/M7vKy1




It would also help a great deal if there weren't arbitrary style restrictions put on bullets. One line only, dashes instead of commas, must have $ impacts, etc.

Why can't I write this:
- Dependable NCO, accurate and timely duty performance, completes tasks without supervision, mission achieved
-- As crew chief, responsible for 5 airplanes, coordinates preflight activites, 100 local training and 200 mission sorties

Instead of this bullet:
- Dep NCO, accurate, timely, no sup. needed -- launch 100 lcl trng, 200 msn sorties -- Wng Msn never fails!

Only to have the second kicked back 15 times as it goes through the change because the new CC wants semi-colons instead of -- or the new "acceptable abbreviation" of supervision is "supv" not "sup."

Idiocy.

sandsjames
09-24-2013, 05:13 PM
I don't see anything wrong with what you describe here.

What's wrong with it is that the 4 will not necessarily be a 4, other than for the fact that only a certain number can get the 5. I've been in shops where everyone is a 5. I've been in shops where nobody is a 5. Any requirement for ratings will screw people in the opposite way that the system now tries not to screw anyone.

Rusty Jones
09-24-2013, 05:25 PM
I don't see anything wrong with what you describe here.

That all depends on how promotion is affected by this. There's a 16-point difference between EP, MP, P (5, 4, 3) in the Navy. You if you have a group of 50 people being rated, #10 goes into the exam with the same amount of points as #1. But #11 takes a 16 drop from #10.

If the Air Force goes with forced distribution, they need to have a better way to translate that to promotion points than the Navy does.

sandsjames
09-24-2013, 05:34 PM
I disagree.

I don't see anything wrong with telling the 3rd best guy in a shop of 8 that they are a 4.

If they are truly a "5", i.e. a truly exceptional performer, that got "screwed" by happening to work alongside two other super-exceptional performers...then they will rise to the top over time, as they won't always be working alongside those 2 people at the same rank.

Except that it's still subjective, and the good ol' boy system is still pretty rampant throughout the Air Force.

What if they are all exceptional? Yet you still have to give one a 4. I don't see why it has to be a "Well he's better than the other guy". Sometimes, everyone can be exceptional, or nobody can be exceptional. If all 8 people are 5s, then they deserve 5s. If none are, then none should get them.

imnohero
09-24-2013, 05:48 PM
MasterC...if you're suggesting that the entire WAPS needs to be looked at...you'll get no argument here.

imnohero
09-24-2013, 05:52 PM
A subjective system is good and necessary.

I tell you, I've been accused of having "favorites" in my day...I probably did...they were my favorites because they came to work on time, with a good attitude, worked hard and knew their jobs. The people who came in late, with shitty attitudes, did the minimum necessary and knew only the basics...often complained they were not in 'the good ol' boy' club.



I guess I wasn't raised in the "everyone gets a trophy" generation.

Not everyone has to have one.

I don't think you'll find someone complaining that a guy that deserves a 5 gets one. The problem is when a guy that deserves a 3 gets a 5 because he's the sq chiefs pet, but his duty performance sucks.

Mastercone
09-24-2013, 05:59 PM
That all depends on how promotion is affected by this. There's a 16-point difference between EP, MP, P (5, 4, 3) in the Navy. You if you have a group of 50 people being rated, #10 goes into the exam with the same amount of points as #1. But #11 takes a 16 drop from #10.

If the Air Force goes with forced distribution, they need to have a better way to translate that to promotion points than the Navy does.

Promotion opportunity is precisely how a quota system or any semblance thereof would affect airmen. Currently, for grades up to E-7, an airman can easily overcome the effects of less than 5 EPR by simply answering 3 more questions correctly on the promotion exam for a 4 EPR, etc. But airman are not in the lower ranks forever and eventually are eligible for Senior & Chief(E-8 & E-9). Once an airmen is eligible to test for these grades, their EPRs for the last TEN YEARS(10) are considered by the promotion board whose scoring makes up more than half of an airman's total possible score for the promotion cycle. Historically, with rare exceptions, anyone with less than perfect EPRs or all '5s' are not selected. Don't take my word for it, here are the latest E-8 & E-9 promotion statistics. Note the PERFECT 135.00 average for SELECTEES and the less than stellar EPR average for non-selectees:


USAF CYCLE 13E8 AF AVERAGES: http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130228-009.pdf


USAF CYCLE 12E9 AF AVERAGES: http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121108-009.pdf


In the end, giving a 4 EPR to a subordinate is essentially informing them that their effort to excel to the E-8/E-9 grades will be postponed for at least 10 years. But, hey, they're still a great troop and they should just try harder.

Then you have those who have the unfortunate experience of working for a bad supervisor or one where severe conflict exists. It happens. Promotion and advancement opportunity in one's career should never come down to the hand of one bad supervisor. Anyone who has been in the service for any length of time, no matter when you have served or are still serving, has known or has worked for at least one bad supervisor. If you disagree with this statement, then, in all likelihood, YOU are that bad supervisor.

Another imbalance that has thus far gone unmentioned are the phalanx of undeserving root smoochers and brown nosers that will simply increase efforts to curry favor with their superiors in an effort to have an unjust preference for performance ratings over others who may very well be more deserving but become unnoticed as a result.

imnohero
09-24-2013, 06:11 PM
So, you want a system wherein the sq chief (or rater, or commander, or shop chief) has no say one way or another in who gets what ratings?

That's correct. If giving them a say means that a guy that earns a 5 gets a 3 because the super, chief, or CC don't "like him." It's happened, I've seen it happen. So let's not play this game like all chiefs are the paragons of fairness and integrity...we all know they aren't.

Mastercone
09-24-2013, 07:12 PM
The difference between 5s across the board and 4s across the board is 27 points.

That was a nice try and I appreciate your point, but I was NOT making an example of someone who has all four EPRs but rather ONE '4' EPR which means that if an AIRMAN had an APR history of 5,5,5,5,5,4 or even 5,5,4,5,5,5 it would equate to 132 points or three points less than the perfect 135 which is tantamount to 3 additional questions being answered correctly on the promotion tests. You seem to have eagerly extrapolated the mere mention of a '4' EPR into a complete history of nothing but '4' EPRs. I can't imagine someone hanging on past their first enlistment with nothing but '4' EPRs but if the future falls in your favor it might be more common than one might think.

My original quote:

Currently, for grades up to E-7, an airman can easily overcome the effects of less than 5 EPR by simply answering 3 more questions correctly on the promotion exam for a 4 EPR, etc.

Moreover, let's suppose an airman did have all 4 EPRs with a composite EPR score of 108 points or 27 points shy of the perfect 135. It's not impossible to overcome this deficit with the one component you do control and that is the promotion exams. Below is a link to the 2012 E7 Score Averages, and the AVERAGE PFE for Selectees was 69.71 and the AVERAGE SKT score was 60.42. Keeping in mind that this is a simple analysis based on averages without injecting the typical and even far-fetched minutiae, one could easily overcome the effects of the '4' EPR history by increasing his or her scores to 83 and 74 respectively. This is certainly not impossible and is likely done quite frequently.

USAF CYCLE 12E7: AF Averages: http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120516-065.pdf


This is because the system is inflated...if they correct that, then giving someone a 4 shouldn't have the same effect it does now.

This is, at best, specious. The same arguments being aired out here have been argued for decades. As I mentioned before, changing the system would still affect those that are concerned about their career path. If it were implemented, promotion boards would still continue to weed out the less than perfect '5s' for E-8 and E-9 and those immediately affected by the BIG QUOTA plan with just one less than five EPR would be placed into the NON-SELECTEE pile at least in the early years. You cannot guarantee that would not happen.

The Air Force has never been perfect but the simple solution to this multi-generational farce is to 'depeg' the APR scoring system from the promotion system altogether. For E-8 & E-9 grades, a "PROMOTION Summary Recommendation Sheet" of sorts can be designed and used for board consideration. EPR's could continue to be used but would only be used to determine eligibility for promotion testing and special duty assignments, etc.

This "PROMOTION Summary Recommendation Sheet" for E-8 & E-9 boards is even more plausible because no one really cares that MSGT "X" worked for a bad supervisor in 2004 and received a lone "4" EPR. But, under the current system, MSGT "X" currently and in all likelihood will not even be considered seriously by the promotion board until at least 2014 for promotion to E8 when that "4" EPR finally disappears from consideration.

Voila! EPR rating inflation would naturally disappear over time because it would no longer serve as a death knell to one's promotion opportunities during their career which is the ONLY real reason there is ratings inflation from the start.

In the alternative, you could even continue to use EPRs for promotion scoring BUT ONLY for non-board promotion schemes such as the current E5, E6, & E7 testing cycles. For E-8 & E-9 grades or promotions involving a board, ONLY a "PROMOTION Summary Recommendation Sheet" of sorts with no reference to ratings would be used in board consideration. This is what it all comes down to anyway. Board members don't care what a guy did as a SSgt as much as what current superiors and commanders believe and how far the airman has actually matured and developed.

As it remains now, the boards simply use a lazy man's approach by winnowing all of the folders that have even one less than "5" EPR from the consideration pile. Is that fair? Of course not. But continuing to use this scheme makes it a one mistake Air Force that can affect someone for life.

imnohero
09-24-2013, 11:56 PM
Just a thought, if the performance report is no longer counted as "points" toward promotion, and instead only determines promotion eligibility. Does that help solve the inflation problem?

That is, if you are promotion eligible with a 3,4 or 5...and points are determined exactly the same by the other elements, except 135 less...what changes except cutoff scores? Cutoff scores are moved based on # of promotions needed anyway, so instead of being a 400 point scale, they can be a 265 point scale, right?

imnohero
09-25-2013, 12:43 AM
Like you said, nothing much changes...so where is the improvement?

Actually, I'm not sure I would consider it improvement. I was just thinking "out loud" (as it were). The question is, if we remove promotion points from the rating politics, does it reduce inflation? Or does it matter, given that 5s are the standard for awards, special duties, etc.?

No matter what angle I come at this from, I end up in the same place...that it's WAPS, as a system, that has a problem...not just EPRs. I don't see how we "fix" inflation without reforming WAPS processes as a whole.

DWWSWWD
09-25-2013, 01:48 AM
Without doing the math here...I can tell you that 5,5,5,5,5,4 will get less points than 5,5,4,5,5,5.

Just because you've made some good points and that this argument would be hard to follow for folks that don't do this everyday, I'll point out that you transposed you're rating strings. 5,5,5,5,5,4 gets MORE points than the other.

OK. I think our promotion system is the best of all the services. Ask an Army guy if there is a good old boy system or if someone that looks a little dumpy in their uniform has as good a chance getting promoted as someone who is otherwise the same but has a better appearance in the eyes of whomever is on the board. In many cases doesn't the cream rise to the top regardless of EPR ponts impact? Usually, don't squared away folks know their jobs better, study harder and get promoted ahead of dirt bags? Sure there are folks that you'd love to see not wearing the rank, but the impact of having those folks in the workcenter is not a WAPS problem necessarily, rather a leadership issue. We should ask ourselves if fixing that problem weighs more than the people we are going to hurt in the process of trying to find a fair rating system. Which as has been pointed out, nobody has, civilian sector included.

retiredAFcivvy
09-25-2013, 02:06 AM
As a civilian supervisor I wrote many EPRs (mostly junior enlisted) and civilian appraisals before all this complicated scoring so don't have a lot of input, but do know that objective standards are tough. I would like to say that I hope whoever is considering these changes will take a good look at the comments on this forum. There has been a lot of excellent input.

sandsjames
09-25-2013, 12:27 PM
A subjective system is good and necessary.

I tell you, I've been accused of having "favorites" in my day...I probably did...they were my favorites because they came to work on time, with a good attitude, worked hard and knew their jobs. The people who came in late, with shitty attitudes, did the minimum necessary and knew only the basics...often complained they were not in 'the good ol' boy' club.



I guess I wasn't raised in the "everyone gets a trophy" generation.

Not everyone has to have one.

Neither was I, unless they all deserved it. Were you raised in the generation where somebody MUST get a trophy? That's what a quota system does. Even if nobody is exceptional, some will still be given a top rating.

2G071
09-25-2013, 02:35 PM
My question: why do we tie ourselves to a 5 point system? The only choices you can now give a troop one of 5 percentages/grades:

5 = 100% or A grade equivalent
4 = 80% or a C (and as we all know is death for any SNCO)
3 = 60% which academically is an F which ironically the AF considers "average".
2 = 40% (again an F)
1 = 20% (has anyone seen one of these for someone who didn't just get court martial-ed?)

We need to consider adding a percentage point to the existing system. The new scale would be 1.0 to 5.0. This would give supervisors more options and a better scale to evaluate. Before you say “Then everyone would just get a 5.0!”, it would have to come with quotas – something along the lines of only 5 % of a unit could get a 5.0, the next 10% could a 4.7 to 4.8. Any rating 4.6 and below wouldn't have limits. Yes, there would be politics as there always was and always will be (I don’t see the AF declaring a “zero-tolerance” for politics anytime soon).

If you’re a supervisor looking at EPR history, seeing 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5… on a RIP really doesn't tell you much with current inflation. With the above suggestion, 4.9,4.8, 4.9, 4.7… would reveal this person is a high performer, while 4.6, 4.5, 4.5, 4.4… would more likely indicate an above average troop and so on.

With this change, special duty specialties would be required to abandon their “all 5’s only” policy for applicants (maybe they need to do it anyway as it's already fueling inflation). I would also suggest the awards AFI be amended with something along the lines of “Commanders will approve awards and decorations based on merit and not set minimum EPR ratings for consideration”.

Filterbing
09-25-2013, 02:39 PM
I don't think anything we do will get rid of the inflation as long as the EPRs are involved in test scores and tied to special duty selection. My thoughts are that we should remove the 135 WAPS score and make the EPR a no retain, retain, or pormotion ready system. Then make the WAPS test score be negativly impacted by things like Art 15's (ie...minus 20pts for 2 test periods). Getting in trouble is most often what really causes a low EPR score anyhow.

I also think PT scores should be added to WAPS in like a 30 or 40 point scale. then we no longer waste time trying to kick people out for being fat and lazy. If they don't raise their score (similar to PFE testng) they will not promote and HYT will take care of them.

SomeRandomGuy
09-25-2013, 02:57 PM
I don't think anything we do will get rid of the inflation as long as the EPRs are involved in test scores and tied to special duty selection. My thoughts are that we should remove the 135 WAPS score and make the EPR a no retain, retain, or pormotion ready system. Then make the WAPS test score be negativly impacted by things like Art 15's (ie...minus 20pts for 2 test periods). Getting in trouble is most often what really causes a low EPR score anyhow.

I also think PT scores should be added to WAPS in like a 30 or 40 point scale. then we no longer waste time trying to kick people out for being fat and lazy. If they don't raise their score (similar to PFE testng) they will not promote and HYT will take care of them.

The problem with this is that not all Article 15s are created equal. When I worked base level finance I recieved a copy of every single article 15 from legal. This was necessary to make sure pay adjustments were made. One month I recieved the following Article 15s. A Medical Technician failed to properly sterilize surgical equipment. An A1C recieved a DUI. A Major shoplifted from the BX. A recruiter had an unprofessional relationship and violated a no contact order. A SSgt violated a lawful order (failure to go).

Now look at those 5 Article 15s. Are you advocating that someone who fails to perform their job up to standards should be recieve the same WAPS deduction as someone who slept with a recruit? Does the the guy who was late to work (failure to go) deserve the same deduction as the DUI guy? Would it change your opinion if the DUI guy blew a .081 after sleeping at a friends and driving home the next morning? You have to remember that Article 15s are supposed to be rehabilitive tools. If you attach a -20 WAPS requirement you will have some units who will not do an Article 15 because they do not want to hurt the Airman's chances of promotion.

sandsjames
09-25-2013, 03:48 PM
Yes...did you ever play in a little league or other competition where at the end they said...well, none of you deserve to win, so no trophy?? What kind of place/time did you grow up?

They should have done that in the NFL last year...okay, Ravens you won the Super Bowl, but you didn't really have that great a year, so no Lombardi trophy this year

LOL...

But, no, seriously...a quota system would be a maximum #....so they don't have to give any 5s.

I did play little league. The difference being that little league was a competition. EPRs are not. They are a feedback for the individual. That's like saying only one person can score 100 on the PT test. Anyone who runs slightly slower, even if they beat the minimum time, can't possible also be 100 because they aren't as fast as the fastest person. Did 80 pushups? Too bad. That guy did 82. He's the only 100.

sandsjames
09-25-2013, 05:12 PM
Whatever, dude...

I'm not going to continue arguing nonsense with you...as mentioned, any quota system would be only a MAXIMUM number of high ratings, not a mandatory number. EPRs ARE competitive...you are supposed to be rated against your peers...read the damn form.

Don't need to read the form...I'm retired!!!!

If troops are going to be rated against their peers, they need to have 1 person rating them. It's impossible to rack and stack with separate supervisors. I might think my troop is better while you believe yours is.

Mastercone
09-25-2013, 05:55 PM
I shouldn't have to sell you on any premise. Our little fusillade here is mostly for the benefit of the reading audience. Keep in mind that there is a good reason that this topic keeps rearing its ugly head every decade or so in the Air Force. They couldn't solve it 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. What makes you think the arguments are any different today? They're not.

Before the advent of WAPS testing in 1971, promotions were earned in one of two ways. The first was an allocation of stripes each year to bases and units where the commanders decided who got promoted. The second method was where a commander would bust a troop via the Article 15 process and give that stripe to someone else in the unit. Once again, it was always the commander's choice. In the mid-eighties, commanders rolled out with the STEP promotion process where, in fiscal year 1986, 386 stripes were handed out Air Force-wide for the SSgt through MSgt grades. Back then, no one I knew liked this process either. Why do you suppose that these promotion systems were considered undesirable by the masses? This system fostered an abundance of brown nosing where, more often than not, those who might otherwise be undeserving got preferential treatment as well as the promotions.

What might make your assertions more amenable is if you were to explain precisely how this numerically dependent quasi-quota system would make the Air Force better. Thus far, you haven't presented anything remotely persuasive. At best, a mere 10% of the enlisted corps would enjoy a new special social status that would give them preferential treatment on many considerations including promotions. The rest, well, would just be castigated as average dopes who would be fortunate to receive any scraps or leftovers that the 10% did not want. I cannot imagine anyone wanting a service that reflects this image including many of those who would be fortunate enough to find themselves in the top 10%. In the end, the top 10% would find themselves only competing against a much smaller segment of population - themselves.

I laid out for you a rough framework for what potentially would be a more equitable system for ratings assessment in the promotions process and you obstinately rejected all of it outright in support of this pro-quota mantra. Your arguments are those of the standard establishment from the past who simply desire to make changes for the sake of change in what they believe or hope would somehow result in a more perfect Air Force. No one knows for sure if it will actually work, whether it will impact morale or retention, or whether the truly best will benefit from this scheme. The underlying tone in your posts suggests that you would be more likely than not to directly benefit from such a change.

As I mentioned from the onset, the only cheerleaders for this scheme are those who have already made chief and are no longer subjected to promotions as they have reached the apex of their careers. It sure seems easier to support the promulgation of new policy when you know it will NEVER apply to you. It would be far more relevant if we were to see a quantifiable number of rank and file enlisted personnel from all grades supporting this process. They never have and most likely never will.

When you read through this entire thread, you can see there are no shortage of complaints or fear of inequities in the ratings process. This is because the ratings process is a human process and most of us, being familiar with the ways of the world, know that something that can go wrong usually does. If you were honest, you would agree that there are inequities built into the system but it is unlikely that you, yourself, have never fallen victim to them.

The quota system, on its surface, would be nearly harmless for WAPS purposes when testing for grades E-5 through E-7 because there is no board(human element) and any deficiencies as a result of EPR ratings can simply be overcome with HIGHER TEST SCORES. But a career isn't expected to end after successfully being promoted from SSgt through MSgt. For grades E-8 & E-9, an additional human element of a promotion board is inserted into the process which makes selection practically impossible or nonexistent for anyone with just one EPR less than a '5' in the past ten years.


Without doing the math here...I can tell you that 5,5,5,5,5,4 will get less points than 5,5,4,5,5,5. There is a "time-weighted" factor to the EPR score...so that a more recent 4 counts more heavily "against you" than a more distant past 4 does. So, the math gets a little more complicated than a 4 equated to 3 points.

I stand corrected. I was using a formula from the last time I tested for promotion in the mid-eighties and was unaware of this 'time weighted' factor which seems acceptable. Even then, presuming a chronological sequence for both parameters with the newest EPR to the right, the "5,5,5,5,5,4" results in a composite score of 129.00 while the "5,5,4,5,5,5" series results in a 130.80. The stark difference here is the under the old APR system, ratings were based on 1 through 9 and without the time weighted factor so the resulting math would be less punitive in the scoring arena. Nonetheless, one would only need to outscore their peers by a mere 6 points to compensate for the '4' EPR.


Yes...the EPRs can be overcome, for sure...you also get 8 points per year in TIG+TIS...so figure at worst, after 3 years an "All 4s" candidate is nearly caught up to an "All 5s" candidate.

Yes, but ALL of your COMPETITORS also receive TIG & TIS points, some more than others. For promotions from E-5 through E-7, all of the disadvantages of these other WAPS factors can easily be overcome through higher test scores which count for more than half of all WAPS factors combined. This even includes deficiencies with EPRs. You'll get no complaint from me here.


Sure i can. Assuming for the moment that the "quota" of 5s is going to be the top 10%. Last year's CMSgt selection rate was around 20%...if only 10% of SMSgts are getting 5s, I can guarantee that many who got 4s would get promoted with a 20% promotion rate.


No, boards don't do the lazy man's approach...I don't buy that premise.


That's not really true...I don't believe the board gives a whole lot of weight to a 4 earned in 2004.

What you offered isn't a guarantee as much but rather an admission that the promotions to E-8 & E-9 are stacked in favor of ONLY those with perfect 5's in their EPR history. This approach further supports my contention in two ways. One, you conveniently left out E-8 promotions. Before one can test for E-9, they must first make E-8. Second, if we examine the latest available E-8 & E-9 promotion cycles, we can plainly see the crux of the argument. Below are the statistics with the supporting links from AFPC.

The one glaring number that stands out in these two promotion cycles is the AVERAGE EPR SCORE which is a perfect 135.00 for both promotion grades. Second, the selection rate for SMSgt is a mere 10.65% versus the convenient "20%" that you cited for promotions to CMSgt. Using the same rationale you applied for CMSgt, and your assumption that a quota system would result in only 10% of the eligibles having a perfect 5 EPR history, there aren't many stripes left for the balance of the eligibles which includes those that have a less than perfect EPR history in the prior ten years. We can also draw two additional conclusions. One, that the average EPRs for the CMSgt eligibles is notably higher than it is for the SMSgt eligibles because the herd is always thinned during the E-8 promotion process, and two; the less then perfect EPR scores for the E-9 cycle eligibles indicates a likelihood that some 'Cream of the Crop' E-8s who were promoted have since received a less than stellar EPR since attaining that grade. In all likelihood, those E-8s will never be promoted to CMSgt.

I can count on one hand over decades where I have seen the APR/EPR average for selection to E-8 or E-9 less than 135. I have seen a 134.99 on a couple of occasions to E-8 as well as a 134.98 once. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. It is generally a perfect 135.00.

If the boards are NOT using the lazy man's approach by striking all promotion folders with a less than perfect EPR history from consideration as you believe, then how can one reconcile this coincidence in the scoring statistics? A quota system would be tantamount to providing priority promotion advancement to all eligibles who are fortunate enough to have achieved a perfect EPR history while reducing all other eligibles to some secondary status, fair or unfair, for having a lone 4 EPR as far back as 10 years prior to the cycle. You essentially admitted to this in your response.

For promotions to E-8 & E-9, the board score makes up more than half on one's total WAPS score. For promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board score differences between selectees and non-selectees are incredibly lethal to the point that overcoming the deficit is mathematically impossible. It's painfully clear that the board relies heavily on the numeric EPR history in thinning out the folders they have for consideration. But for promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board should be focused on the whole man concept instead of instantly eliminating all of those who might have only an errant 4 EPR in their history.


CYCLE 12E9: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES---1,981--------------134.92----359.28
NONSELECT----------1,527-----77.08----134.89----350.10
SELECTEE-------------454-----22.92----135.00----390.18


CYCLE 13E8: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES--12,834--------------134.22----332.97
NONSELECT---------11,467-----89.35----134.12----325.56
SELECTEE-----------1,367-----10.65----135.00----395.11

USAF CYCLE 12E9: AF AVERAGES -- http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121108-009.pdf
USAF CYCLE 13E8: AF AVERAGES -- http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130228-009.pdf

Mastercone
09-25-2013, 06:09 PM
I'm not here to sell anyone on a premise. Our little fusillade here is mostly for the benefit of the reading audience. Keep in mind that there is a good reason that this topic keeps rearing its ugly head every decade or so in the Air Force. They couldn't solve it 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. What makes you think the arguments are any different today? They're not.

Before the advent of WAPS testing in 1971, promotions were earned in one of two ways. The first was an allocation of stripes each year to bases and units where the commanders decided who got promoted. The second method was where a commander would bust a troop via the Article 15 process and give that stripe to someone else in the unit. Once again, it was always the commander's choice. In the mid-eighties, commanders rolled out with the STEP promotion process where, in fiscal year 1986, 386 stripes were handed out Air Force-wide for the SSgt through MSgt grades. Back then, no one I knew liked this process either. Why do you suppose that these promotion systems were considered undesirable by the masses? This system fostered an abundance of brown nosing where, more often than not, those who might otherwise be undeserving got preferential treatment as well as the promotions.

What might make your assertions more amenable is if you were to explain precisely how this numerically dependent quasi-quota system would make the Air Force better. Thus far, you haven't presented anything remotely persuasive. At best, a mere 10% of the enlisted corps would enjoy a new special social status that would give them preferential treatment on many considerations including promotions. The rest, well, would just be castigated as average dopes who would be fortunate to receive any scraps or leftovers that the 10% did not want. I cannot imagine anyone wanting a service that reflects this image including many of those who would be fortunate enough to find themselves in the top 10%. In the end, the top 10% would find themselves only competing against a much smaller segment of population - themselves.

I laid out for you a rough framework for what potentially would be a more equitable system for ratings assessment in the promotions process and you obstinately rejected all of it outright in support of this pro-quota mantra. Your arguments are those of the standard establishment from the past who simply desire to make changes for the sake of change in what they believe or hope would somehow result in a more perfect Air Force. No one knows for sure if it will actually work, whether it will impact morale or retention, or whether the truly best will benefit from this scheme. The underlying tone in your posts suggests that you would be more likely than not to directly benefit from such a change.

As I mentioned from the onset, the only cheerleaders for this scheme are those who have already made chief and are no longer subjected to promotions as they have reached the apex of their careers. It sure seems easier to support the promulgation of new policy when you know it will NEVER apply to you. It would be far more relevant if we were to see a quantifiable number of rank and file enlisted personnel from all grades supporting this process. They never have and most likely never will.

When you read through this entire thread, you can see there are no shortage of complaints or fear of inequities in the ratings process. This is because the ratings process is a human process and most of us, being familiar with the ways of the world, know that something that can go wrong usually does. If you were honest, you would agree that there are inequities built into the system but it is unlikely that you, yourself, have never fallen victim to them.

The quota system, on its surface, would be nearly harmless for WAPS purposes when testing for grades E-5 through E-7 because there is no board(human element) and any deficiencies as a result of EPR ratings can simply be overcome with HIGHER TEST SCORES. But a career isn't expected to end after successfully being promoted from SSgt through MSgt. For grades E-8 & E-9, an additional human element of a promotion board is inserted into the process which makes selection practically impossible or nonexistent for anyone with just one EPR less than a '5' in the past ten years.


Without doing the math here...I can tell you that 5,5,5,5,5,4 will get less points than 5,5,4,5,5,5. There is a "time-weighted" factor to the EPR score...so that a more recent 4 counts more heavily "against you" than a more distant past 4 does. So, the math gets a little more complicated than a 4 equated to 3 points.

I stand corrected. I was using a formula from the last time I tested for promotion in the mid-eighties and was unaware of this 'time weighted' factor which seems acceptable. Even then, presuming a chronological sequence for both parameters with the newest EPR to the right, the "5,5,5,5,5,4" results in a composite score of 129.00 while the "5,5,4,5,5,5" series results in a 130.80. The stark difference here is the under the old APR system, ratings were based on 1 through 9 and without the time weighted factor so the resulting math would be less punitive in the scoring arena. Nonetheless, one would only need to outscore their peers by a mere 6 points to compensate for the '4' EPR.


Yes...the EPRs can be overcome, for sure...you also get 8 points per year in TIG+TIS...so figure at worst, after 3 years an "All 4s" candidate is nearly caught up to an "All 5s" candidate.

Yes, but ALL of your COMPETITORS also receive TIG & TIS points, some more than others. For promotions from E-5 through E-7, all of the disadvantages of these other WAPS factors can easily be overcome through higher test scores which count for more than half of all WAPS factors combined. This even includes deficiencies with EPRs. You'll get no complaint from me here.


Sure i can. Assuming for the moment that the "quota" of 5s is going to be the top 10%. Last year's CMSgt selection rate was around 20%...if only 10% of SMSgts are getting 5s, I can guarantee that many who got 4s would get promoted with a 20% promotion rate.


No, boards don't do the lazy man's approach...I don't buy that premise.


That's not really true...I don't believe the board gives a whole lot of weight to a 4 earned in 2004.

What you offered isn't a guarantee as much but rather an admission that the promotions to E-8 & E-9 are stacked in favor of ONLY those with perfect 5's in their EPR history. This approach further supports my contention in two ways. One, you conveniently left out E-8 promotions. Before one can test for E-9, they must first make E-8. Second, if we examine the latest available E-8 & E-9 promotion cycles, we can plainly see the crux of the argument. Below are the statistics with the supporting links from AFPC.

The one glaring number that stands out in these two promotion cycles is the AVERAGE EPR SCORE which is a perfect 135.00 for both promotion grades. Second, the selection rate for SMSgt is a mere 10.65% versus the convenient "20%" that you cited for promotions to CMSgt. Using the same rationale you applied for CMSgt, and your assumption that a quota system would result in only 10% of the eligibles having a perfect 5 EPR history, there aren't many stripes left for the balance of the eligibles which includes those that have a less than perfect EPR history in the prior ten years. We can also draw two additional conclusions. One, that the average EPRs for the CMSgt eligibles is notably higher than it is for the SMSgt eligibles because the herd is always thinned during the E-8 promotion process, and two; the less then perfect EPR scores for the E-9 cycle eligibles indicates a likelihood that some 'Cream of the Crop' E-8s who were promoted have since received a less than stellar EPR since attaining that grade. In all likelihood, those E-8s will never be promoted to CMSgt.

I can count on one hand over decades where I have seen the APR/EPR average for selection to E-8 or E-9 less than 135. I have seen a 134.99 on a couple of occasions to E-8 as well as a 134.98 once. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. It is generally a perfect 135.00.

If the boards are NOT using the lazy man's approach by striking all promotion folders with a less than perfect EPR history from consideration as you believe, then how can one reconcile this coincidence in the scoring statistics? A quota system would be tantamount to providing priority promotion advancement to all eligibles who are fortunate enough to have achieved a perfect EPR history while reducing all other eligibles to some secondary status, fair or unfair, for having a lone 4 EPR as far back as 10 years prior to the cycle. You essentially admitted to this in your response.

For promotions to E-8 & E-9, the board score makes up more than half on one's total WAPS score. For promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board score differences between selectees and non-selectees are incredibly lethal to the point that overcoming the deficit is mathematically impossible. It's painfully clear that the board relies heavily on the numeric EPR history in thinning out the folders they have for consideration. But for promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board should be focused on the whole man concept instead of instantly eliminating all of those who might have only an errant 4 EPR in their history.



CYCLE 12E9: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES---1,981--------------134.92----359.28
NONSELECT----------1,527-----77.08----134.89----350.10
SELECTEE-------------454-----22.92----135.00----390.18


CYCLE 13E8: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES--12,834--------------134.22----332.97
NONSELECT---------11,467-----89.35----134.12----325.56
SELECTEE-----------1,367-----10.65----135.00----395.11

Mastercone
09-25-2013, 06:32 PM
You could have expounded a bit more.

Very funny.

imported_DannyJ
09-25-2013, 06:52 PM
I'm not here to sell anyone on a premise. Our little fusillade here is mostly for the benefit of the reading audience. Keep in mind that there is a good reason that this topic keeps rearing its ugly head every decade or so in the Air Force. They couldn't solve it 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. What makes you think the arguments are any different today? They're not... I like to hear myself talk and use big words to sound smurt.

There I fixed it.

Dude. DUDE. STAHP! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE! Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, this is a forum, not a f*cking case study for a M.A., so please K.I.S.S. I got like 3 paragraphs in before I didn't give a shit anymore.

Filterbing
09-25-2013, 06:54 PM
The problem with this is that not all Article 15s are created equal. When I worked base level finance I recieved a copy of every single article 15 from legal. This was necessary to make sure pay adjustments were made. One month I recieved the following Article 15s. A Medical Technician failed to properly sterilize surgical equipment. An A1C recieved a DUI. A Major shoplifted from the BX. A recruiter had an unprofessional relationship and violated a no contact order. A SSgt violated a lawful order (failure to go).

Now look at those 5 Article 15s. Are you advocating that someone who fails to perform their job up to standards should be recieve the same WAPS deduction as someone who slept with a recruit? Does the the guy who was late to work (failure to go) deserve the same deduction as the DUI guy? Would it change your opinion if the DUI guy blew a .081 after sleeping at a friends and driving home the next morning? You have to remember that Article 15s are supposed to be rehabilitive tools. If you attach a -20 WAPS requirement you will have some units who will not do an Article 15 because they do not want to hurt the Airman's chances of promotion.



I admit that I am not an expert on the subject of art 15s, the point was to dock individuals who are obviously not up to standards. The art 15 was an example. The majority of the 3/4 EPRs I have heard of where generated because of an obvious fowl up. It would be intended to have the same career impact as the 3 or 4 EPR would. A simple table for a commander to use showing severity of offense verses rank could be set up. IE, SrA slept with a trainee, could be a 15 point penalty while a TSgt doing the same could be 40 points, and could be done similar to the tables in the UCMJ.


side note, I hate the hammering done to the morning after DUI guys. Until The gov issues a pocket blood analyser, there is no way to tell that there are residule amounts of alcohol in your system. If they had a plan and witnesses to colaborate it, let them handle what the state sees fit to do to them and let it be, not a demotion or similar for doing the right thing.

mikezulu1
09-25-2013, 06:59 PM
A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age.

Is the definition of peers so when you rate your subordinates is it against all of the same rank in the AF, that base, that AFSC, that AFSC at your base. What? Ive never heard this clearly defined by anyone in a leadership position, and its the definition of subjective.

Max Power
09-25-2013, 07:20 PM
I'm not here to sell anyone on a premise. Our little fusillade here is mostly for the benefit of the reading audience. Keep in mind that there is a good reason that this topic keeps rearing its ugly head every decade or so in the Air Force. They couldn't solve it 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. What makes you think the arguments are any different today? They're not.

Before the advent of WAPS testing in 1971, promotions were earned in one of two ways. The first was an allocation of stripes each year to bases and units where the commanders decided who got promoted. The second method was where a commander would bust a troop via the Article 15 process and give that stripe to someone else in the unit. Once again, it was always the commander's choice. In the mid-eighties, commanders rolled out with the STEP promotion process where, in fiscal year 1986, 386 stripes were handed out Air Force-wide for the SSgt through MSgt grades. Back then, no one I knew liked this process either. Why do you suppose that these promotion systems were considered undesirable by the masses? This system fostered an abundance of brown nosing where, more often than not, those who might otherwise be undeserving got preferential treatment as well as the promotions.

What might make your assertions more amenable is if you were to explain precisely how this numerically dependent quasi-quota system would make the Air Force better. Thus far, you haven't presented anything remotely persuasive. At best, a mere 10% of the enlisted corps would enjoy a new special social status that would give them preferential treatment on many considerations including promotions. The rest, well, would just be castigated as average dopes who would be fortunate to receive any scraps or leftovers that the 10% did not want. I cannot imagine anyone wanting a service that reflects this image including many of those who would be fortunate enough to find themselves in the top 10%. In the end, the top 10% would find themselves only competing against a much smaller segment of population - themselves.

I laid out for you a rough framework for what potentially would be a more equitable system for ratings assessment in the promotions process and you obstinately rejected all of it outright in support of this pro-quota mantra. Your arguments are those of the standard establishment from the past who simply desire to make changes for the sake of change in what they believe or hope would somehow result in a more perfect Air Force. No one knows for sure if it will actually work, whether it will impact morale or retention, or whether the truly best will benefit from this scheme. The underlying tone in your posts suggests that you would be more likely than not to directly benefit from such a change.

As I mentioned from the onset, the only cheerleaders for this scheme are those who have already made chief and are no longer subjected to promotions as they have reached the apex of their careers. It sure seems easier to support the promulgation of new policy when you know it will NEVER apply to you. It would be far more relevant if we were to see a quantifiable number of rank and file enlisted personnel from all grades supporting this process. They never have and most likely never will.

When you read through this entire thread, you can see there are no shortage of complaints or fear of inequities in the ratings process. This is because the ratings process is a human process and most of us, being familiar with the ways of the world, know that something that can go wrong usually does. If you were honest, you would agree that there are inequities built into the system but it is unlikely that you, yourself, have never fallen victim to them.

The quota system, on its surface, would be nearly harmless for WAPS purposes when testing for grades E-5 through E-7 because there is no board(human element) and any deficiencies as a result of EPR ratings can simply be overcome with HIGHER TEST SCORES. But a career isn't expected to end after successfully being promoted from SSgt through MSgt. For grades E-8 & E-9, an additional human element of a promotion board is inserted into the process which makes selection practically impossible or nonexistent for anyone with just one EPR less than a '5' in the past ten years.



I stand corrected. I was using a formula from the last time I tested for promotion in the mid-eighties and was unaware of this 'time weighted' factor which seems acceptable. Even then, presuming a chronological sequence for both parameters with the newest EPR to the right, the "5,5,5,5,5,4" results in a composite score of 129.00 while the "5,5,4,5,5,5" series results in a 130.80. The stark difference here is the under the old APR system, ratings were based on 1 through 9 and without the time weighted factor so the resulting math would be less punitive in the scoring arena. Nonetheless, one would only need to outscore their peers by a mere 6 points to compensate for the '4' EPR.



Yes, but ALL of your COMPETITORS also receive TIG & TIS points, some more than others. For promotions from E-5 through E-7, all of the disadvantages of these other WAPS factors can easily be overcome through higher test scores which count for more than half of all WAPS factors combined. This even includes deficiencies with EPRs. You'll get no complaint from me here.







What you offered isn't a guarantee as much but rather an admission that the promotions to E-8 & E-9 are stacked in favor of ONLY those with perfect 5's in their EPR history. This approach further supports my contention in two ways. One, you conveniently left out E-8 promotions. Before one can test for E-9, they must first make E-8. Second, if we examine the latest available E-8 & E-9 promotion cycles, we can plainly see the crux of the argument. Below are the statistics with the supporting links from AFPC.

The one glaring number that stands out in these two promotion cycles is the AVERAGE EPR SCORE which is a perfect 135.00 for both promotion grades. Second, the selection rate for SMSgt is a mere 10.65% versus the convenient "20%" that you cited for promotions to CMSgt. Using the same rationale you applied for CMSgt, and your assumption that a quota system would result in only 10% of the eligibles having a perfect 5 EPR history, there aren't many stripes left for the balance of the eligibles which includes those that have a less than perfect EPR history in the prior ten years. We can also draw two additional conclusions. One, that the average EPRs for the CMSgt eligibles is notably higher than it is for the SMSgt eligibles because the herd is always thinned during the E-8 promotion process, and two; the less then perfect EPR scores for the E-9 cycle eligibles indicates a likelihood that some 'Cream of the Crop' E-8s who were promoted have since received a less than stellar EPR since attaining that grade. In all likelihood, those E-8s will never be promoted to CMSgt.

I can count on one hand over decades where I have seen the APR/EPR average for selection to E-8 or E-9 less than 135. I have seen a 134.99 on a couple of occasions to E-8 as well as a 134.98 once. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. It is generally a perfect 135.00.

If the boards are NOT using the lazy man's approach by striking all promotion folders with a less than perfect EPR history from consideration as you believe, then how can one reconcile this coincidence in the scoring statistics? A quota system would be tantamount to providing priority promotion advancement to all eligibles who are fortunate enough to have achieved a perfect EPR history while reducing all other eligibles to some secondary status, fair or unfair, for having a lone 4 EPR as far back as 10 years prior to the cycle. You essentially admitted to this in your response.

For promotions to E-8 & E-9, the board score makes up more than half on one's total WAPS score. For promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board score differences between selectees and non-selectees are incredibly lethal to the point that overcoming the deficit is mathematically impossible. It's painfully clear that the board relies heavily on the numeric EPR history in thinning out the folders they have for consideration. But for promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board should be focused on the whole man concept instead of instantly eliminating all of those who might have only an errant 4 EPR in their history.



CYCLE 12E9: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES---1,981--------------134.92----359.28
NONSELECT----------1,527-----77.08----134.89----350.10
SELECTEE-------------454-----22.92----135.00----390.18


CYCLE 13E8: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES--12,834--------------134.22----332.97
NONSELECT---------11,467-----89.35----134.12----325.56
SELECTEE-----------1,367-----10.65----135.00----395.11


http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/pub/21publish/c/conversation/this_is_too_much_gif.gif

sandsjames
09-25-2013, 07:37 PM
So...what you are saying is that in your 20 years you never became aware the fact that EPR raters are supposed to rate their troops against their peers?

Wonderful.



Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying :eyeroll

What I'm saying is it's impossible for different people to rate different troops against each other. I think my guy is better. You think your guy is better. What do we do? Flip a coin? Or are we leaving this up to the Commander, the guy who has zero day to day involvement with the troops?

Shaken1976
09-25-2013, 07:59 PM
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying :eyeroll

What I'm saying is it's impossible for different people to rate different troops against each other. I think my guy is better. You think your guy is better. What do we do? Flip a coin? Or are we leaving this up to the Commander, the guy who has zero day to day involvement with the troops?

You could take the same troop and two different supervisors and come up with two different scores.

This past weekend my daughter tried out for a competition dance team. The girls were older than her but she wanted to do it. When we got her scores back she did really super well with one judge. The other one...not so much. She scored a 10/10 on memory from one and 0/10 from the other. Both gave her 10/10 for her costume but nothing else was anywhere close. Same kid dancing with two completely different scores. Different people look at different things and weigh things differently. Thats never going to change. Not in the Air Force and not in real life.

imnohero
09-25-2013, 08:44 PM
You could take the same troop and two different supervisors and come up with two different scores.

Hit the nail on the head, Shaken. This is the fundamental problem with the EPR status quo. The same performance should get the same score, regardless of the rater. At least when everyone gets 5s, it's a level playing field.

mikezulu1
09-25-2013, 09:06 PM
Currently, it it supposed to be against others in the same grade and AFSC AF-wide, IIRC.

Or course, in most cases, the rater does not know all others in an particular grade and AFSC...but, the rater uses his/her best judgement.



Subjective is good.

I agree that subjective is good for ratings but not when you are trying to identify who you are rating your subordinate against. I agree that it should be same rank and AFSC air force wide. But if you are a new staff sgt. at your first base, first subordinate how are you going to have any idea of what meets/exceeds/clearly exceeds at any other base? Base X could say 1 college class= clearly exceeds and Base Y could=3 classes etc....etc...so An Amn that takes 2 classes at Base X is way over achieving but at base Y gets a 4.

IIRC= if i recall correctly.....if i recall correctly

mikezulu1
09-25-2013, 09:13 PM
tak are you saying NO to the same rank AND AFSC or just same rank? I think you have to rate against all in the same AFSC, that who you test against and your rating effects the score of that test.

"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."

AKA just wing it, no one cares.

imnohero
09-25-2013, 11:34 PM
As mentioned, this is part of the problem...everyone thinks their unit is special and their people are better.

But I thought subjective is good.

imnohero
09-25-2013, 11:48 PM
you can't have it both ways, MM. The very subjectivism that you like, is what is causing the problems you are identifying, and lead to everyone gets a 5. That is "not good."

So, I ask you, if subjective ratings are causing the problems, how do you propose to correct it, if not remove some or all of the subjective nature of ratings.

VCO
09-26-2013, 12:27 AM
I admit that I am not an expert on the subject of art 15s, the point was to dock individuals who are obviously not up to standards. The art 15 was an example. The majority of the 3/4 EPRs I have heard of where generated because of an obvious fowl up. It would be intended to have the same career impact as the 3 or 4 EPR would. A simple table for a commander to use showing severity of offense verses rank could be set up. IE, SrA slept with a trainee, could be a 15 point penalty while a TSgt doing the same could be 40 points, and could be done similar to the tables in the UCMJ.


side note, I hate the hammering done to the morning after DUI guys. Until The gov issues a pocket blood analyser, there is no way to tell that there are residule amounts of alcohol in your system. If they had a plan and witnesses to colaborate it, let them handle what the state sees fit to do to them and let it be, not a demotion or similar for doing the right thing.

Damn fowls... https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREtl3WOak0T-O6RY3-XQi2k32Z2GtAepfeHUtFnAj_sFv2zMdy0qFOMg9N

imnohero
09-26-2013, 01:44 AM
I see, so instead of fixing the problem, you'd rather add a "control mechanism." I would argue that increases the complexity and potential for different types of problems without really solving the underlying issue.

What we should be trying to figure out is how to make the system simpler, instead of more complex. I'm not saying the "objective standards" do that, by the way. However, I believe that a large amount of clarity in the EPR rating scheme could be accomplished by implementing some objective measures of performance. We also, in my opinion, need to go to a 3 tier system instead of 4 or 5. Doesn't meet, meets, exceeds. Don't promote, promote when eligible, ready for promotion now. The gradations in the existing system are too "fuzzy", in my opinion. Simplier is better.

imnohero
09-26-2013, 02:35 AM
4 I will tell you, that while I was active duty I wrote up a fully supported proposal and submitted it all the way to the MAJCOM Command Chief...I would encourage you to do the same.

I did, way back in 2000-2001. The answer I got by phone was a very angry "There is no inflation. There is no problem with the EPR system. Mind your own business." And that's the cleaned up version.

giggawatt
09-26-2013, 11:41 AM
I'm not here to sell anyone on a premise. Our little fusillade here is mostly for the benefit of the reading audience. Keep in mind that there is a good reason that this topic keeps rearing its ugly head every decade or so in the Air Force. They couldn't solve it 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. What makes you think the arguments are any different today? They're not.

Before the advent of WAPS testing in 1971, promotions were earned in one of two ways. The first was an allocation of stripes each year to bases and units where the commanders decided who got promoted. The second method was where a commander would bust a troop via the Article 15 process and give that stripe to someone else in the unit. Once again, it was always the commander's choice. In the mid-eighties, commanders rolled out with the STEP promotion process where, in fiscal year 1986, 386 stripes were handed out Air Force-wide for the SSgt through MSgt grades. Back then, no one I knew liked this process either. Why do you suppose that these promotion systems were considered undesirable by the masses? This system fostered an abundance of brown nosing where, more often than not, those who might otherwise be undeserving got preferential treatment as well as the promotions.

What might make your assertions more amenable is if you were to explain precisely how this numerically dependent quasi-quota system would make the Air Force better. Thus far, you haven't presented anything remotely persuasive. At best, a mere 10% of the enlisted corps would enjoy a new special social status that would give them preferential treatment on many considerations including promotions. The rest, well, would just be castigated as average dopes who would be fortunate to receive any scraps or leftovers that the 10% did not want. I cannot imagine anyone wanting a service that reflects this image including many of those who would be fortunate enough to find themselves in the top 10%. In the end, the top 10% would find themselves only competing against a much smaller segment of population - themselves.

I laid out for you a rough framework for what potentially would be a more equitable system for ratings assessment in the promotions process and you obstinately rejected all of it outright in support of this pro-quota mantra. Your arguments are those of the standard establishment from the past who simply desire to make changes for the sake of change in what they believe or hope would somehow result in a more perfect Air Force. No one knows for sure if it will actually work, whether it will impact morale or retention, or whether the truly best will benefit from this scheme. The underlying tone in your posts suggests that you would be more likely than not to directly benefit from such a change.

As I mentioned from the onset, the only cheerleaders for this scheme are those who have already made chief and are no longer subjected to promotions as they have reached the apex of their careers. It sure seems easier to support the promulgation of new policy when you know it will NEVER apply to you. It would be far more relevant if we were to see a quantifiable number of rank and file enlisted personnel from all grades supporting this process. They never have and most likely never will.

When you read through this entire thread, you can see there are no shortage of complaints or fear of inequities in the ratings process. This is because the ratings process is a human process and most of us, being familiar with the ways of the world, know that something that can go wrong usually does. If you were honest, you would agree that there are inequities built into the system but it is unlikely that you, yourself, have never fallen victim to them.

The quota system, on its surface, would be nearly harmless for WAPS purposes when testing for grades E-5 through E-7 because there is no board(human element) and any deficiencies as a result of EPR ratings can simply be overcome with HIGHER TEST SCORES. But a career isn't expected to end after successfully being promoted from SSgt through MSgt. For grades E-8 & E-9, an additional human element of a promotion board is inserted into the process which makes selection practically impossible or nonexistent for anyone with just one EPR less than a '5' in the past ten years.



I stand corrected. I was using a formula from the last time I tested for promotion in the mid-eighties and was unaware of this 'time weighted' factor which seems acceptable. Even then, presuming a chronological sequence for both parameters with the newest EPR to the right, the "5,5,5,5,5,4" results in a composite score of 129.00 while the "5,5,4,5,5,5" series results in a 130.80. The stark difference here is the under the old APR system, ratings were based on 1 through 9 and without the time weighted factor so the resulting math would be less punitive in the scoring arena. Nonetheless, one would only need to outscore their peers by a mere 6 points to compensate for the '4' EPR.



Yes, but ALL of your COMPETITORS also receive TIG & TIS points, some more than others. For promotions from E-5 through E-7, all of the disadvantages of these other WAPS factors can easily be overcome through higher test scores which count for more than half of all WAPS factors combined. This even includes deficiencies with EPRs. You'll get no complaint from me here.







What you offered isn't a guarantee as much but rather an admission that the promotions to E-8 & E-9 are stacked in favor of ONLY those with perfect 5's in their EPR history. This approach further supports my contention in two ways. One, you conveniently left out E-8 promotions. Before one can test for E-9, they must first make E-8. Second, if we examine the latest available E-8 & E-9 promotion cycles, we can plainly see the crux of the argument. Below are the statistics with the supporting links from AFPC.

The one glaring number that stands out in these two promotion cycles is the AVERAGE EPR SCORE which is a perfect 135.00 for both promotion grades. Second, the selection rate for SMSgt is a mere 10.65% versus the convenient "20%" that you cited for promotions to CMSgt. Using the same rationale you applied for CMSgt, and your assumption that a quota system would result in only 10% of the eligibles having a perfect 5 EPR history, there aren't many stripes left for the balance of the eligibles which includes those that have a less than perfect EPR history in the prior ten years. We can also draw two additional conclusions. One, that the average EPRs for the CMSgt eligibles is notably higher than it is for the SMSgt eligibles because the herd is always thinned during the E-8 promotion process, and two; the less then perfect EPR scores for the E-9 cycle eligibles indicates a likelihood that some 'Cream of the Crop' E-8s who were promoted have since received a less than stellar EPR since attaining that grade. In all likelihood, those E-8s will never be promoted to CMSgt.

I can count on one hand over decades where I have seen the APR/EPR average for selection to E-8 or E-9 less than 135. I have seen a 134.99 on a couple of occasions to E-8 as well as a 134.98 once. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. It is generally a perfect 135.00.

If the boards are NOT using the lazy man's approach by striking all promotion folders with a less than perfect EPR history from consideration as you believe, then how can one reconcile this coincidence in the scoring statistics? A quota system would be tantamount to providing priority promotion advancement to all eligibles who are fortunate enough to have achieved a perfect EPR history while reducing all other eligibles to some secondary status, fair or unfair, for having a lone 4 EPR as far back as 10 years prior to the cycle. You essentially admitted to this in your response.

For promotions to E-8 & E-9, the board score makes up more than half on one's total WAPS score. For promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board score differences between selectees and non-selectees are incredibly lethal to the point that overcoming the deficit is mathematically impossible. It's painfully clear that the board relies heavily on the numeric EPR history in thinning out the folders they have for consideration. But for promotion to E-8 & E-9, the board should be focused on the whole man concept instead of instantly eliminating all of those who might have only an errant 4 EPR in their history.



CYCLE 12E9: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES---1,981--------------134.92----359.28
NONSELECT----------1,527-----77.08----134.89----350.10
SELECTEE-------------454-----22.92----135.00----390.18


CYCLE 13E8: AF AVERAGES
-------------------NBR-------PCT------EPR-------BOARD SCORE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES--12,834--------------134.22----332.97
NONSELECT---------11,467-----89.35----134.12----325.56
SELECTEE-----------1,367-----10.65----135.00----395.11




Your post contains an extraodinary amount of information and has surpassed the length which manages to keep my attention.

Consequently, I had no gander at your materials and made no attempt to absorb the information inherit within.

imported_StandardsAMust
09-26-2013, 03:03 PM
I've got the draft proposed EPR changes. Most of you are going to be shocked at what is coming your way. Here's the summary:

Implementation will be sooner than thought FY14. PT is leaving the form, it will be performanced based, WAPS is changing as a result...only top 3 EPRs will be factored. TIS/TIG points are being removed. Looks like EPRs will all close out on same day. Looks like limits will be placed on those who receive a 5, and 3 will be the new standard. MSgt boards are just around the corner, looks like FY15. Under consideration and still working: Sr Rater endorsement for only those with a strat recommendation and this will be limited to top 10% of MSgt and 20% of Seniors.

Interesting.

Filterbing
09-26-2013, 03:09 PM
how solid is this info?

sandsjames
09-26-2013, 03:37 PM
Thanks, now I am thinking how those changes fix inflation.
I Like pt leaving, like close out on same day, like MSgt boards.
I'm guessing by limits you mean quotas. Will be interesting,
Lot of feelings will be hurt. Will make people more cut throat
And quadruple threats. I hope they tell Dec approvals that
3 is new 5 and gotta change new special duty reqts.
Good stuff, thanks for sharing.

Let's be honest. PT is not leaving. There may be no block for it, but it will still be the main factor in other blocks.

sandsjames
09-26-2013, 03:42 PM
So failed pt will drive an auto referral epr still?
In fitness block and or standards...

I don't know what the blocks will look like, but I'm sure a poor score will still be used in (if the blocks still exist) leadership or standards, or both.

Giant Voice
09-26-2013, 03:56 PM
Under consideration and still working: Sr Rater endorsement for only those with a strat recommendation and this will be limited to top 10% of MSgt and 20% of Seniors.

How will this be justified? Example: The only promotable MSgt in the shop. Other is retiring. Position can't be compared to others in the group. So 1of 2, but wait for it...plenty of award packages(no wins), not enough check marks completed, Sr. rater doesn't believe current position is promotable(even though that shouldn't matter).

The above is an acutal person on base(not me). So basically, this guy could get promoted, but due to current leadership, doesn't have a prayer.

sandsjames
09-26-2013, 04:37 PM
I guess you and I will be on pins and needles until then.

Oh yeah, I'm gonna be losing sleep...

sandsjames
09-26-2013, 05:04 PM
Try counting retirement checks, it helps.

http://conversation.which.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/counting-sheep.jpg

First one comes Tuesday...I'm officially living on the dole...I'm a 47%'er

Capt Alfredo
09-26-2013, 11:10 PM
FY14 starts on Tuesday. Kind of doubt this could be implemented that fast, especially with unit policies such as those mandating EPRs be turned in 30-60 days before close-out.

imnohero
09-26-2013, 11:28 PM
FY14 starts on Tuesday. Kind of doubt this could be implemented that fast, especially with unit policies such as those mandating EPRs be turned in 30-60 days before close-out.

Funny thing about that...the AFI says, or at least used to say, that the sq. couldn't ask a rater for an EPR any earlier than 7 days prior to the closeout. It was routine in my squadron(s) to submit an EPR 30 days prior and not get it to MPF until 60 days after. 90 days to process? NAH, that's not a problem

TWilliams
09-27-2013, 02:55 AM
tak are you saying NO to the same rank AND AFSC or just same rank? I think you have to rate against all in the same AFSC, that who you test against and your rating effects the score of that test.

"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."

AKA just wing it, no one cares.

General Welsh said we don't have to follow AFIs that don't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me to rate someone compared to my impressions of the general level of performance of Air Force Personnel when I have nothing substantial to base my impressions on. I think the only fair way to evaluate someone is based on their performance compared to the standards set forth in supervisor feedback sessions. Granted, that won't do anything to address EPR inflation since supervisors all won't have the exact same standards but I believe it is the only fair way for the rate to be evaluated on their performance.

imported_StandardsAMust
09-27-2013, 04:25 AM
FY14 starts on Tuesday. Kind of doubt this could be implemented that fast, especially with unit policies such as those mandating EPRs be turned in 30-60 days before close-out.

I believe the intent it to begin implementation sometime within FY14...I'm sure it will be phased in...most likely beginning with SMSgt EPRs late next year.

imported_DannyJ
09-27-2013, 09:47 PM
Can't wait to see how this goes down. I believe that each rank closing out on the PECD is a good way to curb inflation, but I suppose we'll see soon enough.

Filterbing
09-30-2013, 07:25 PM
Email received today
_____________________________________________

New EPRs on the way in FY 14. Big changes:

PT will be removed from the form. This does NOT mean that PT no longer
matters--PT failure still constitutes a referral EPR.

This is a PERFORMANCE based EPR. The vast majority of this EPR addresses
how you are doing in your job day-to-day and how well you are meeting what
is expected of an Airman. There will be a lot more information on the EPR
form with guidance on exactly what it is you are supposed to be evaluating.
The feedback mechanism will change a bit also as will the feedback form.
The feedback form will be revamped and will possibly be introduced as part
of the record along with the EPR--in the end, as a supervisor, you will be
MUCH better prepared to write the EPR and your personnel will not be
surprised by what they receive.

For WAPS scoring, only the top three EPRs will be looked at for scoring.
The top EPR will be worth 60% of your EPR score, the second will be worth
30% and the last will be worth 10%.

Time in Service/Time in Grade points will no longer be factored in. Some
may be concerned about the "experience" factor being lost in promotion
consideration. If you consider, however, the people who are experienced and
really top shelf will be scored higher on their EPRs and will have a
distinct score advantage, this should go a long way towards differentiating
between the "experienced performer" and the "experienced meeting standards."

Consideration is being given to have all EPRs for a particular grade
closeout on the same day. Also, looking into eliminating the CRO EPR and
possibly replacing this with an LOE. These two steps make sure everyone
gets a good year report rather than sometimes receiving a 4 month report.

Only the top 5% on SSgt and TSgt EPRs will receive a 5, and the next 20%
will receive 4s. This will put the majority of people at a 3 which remains
meeting standards. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people
because right now, the vast majority of our personnel are receiving 5s (and
firewall at that). This inflation has built a false confidence across our
enlisted force that everyone is a rock star. It has also meant that a 3 or
a 4 on an EPR means you are doing something really wrong. The language on
the new EPR (not finalized, just in rough draft) has a 3 as meeting
standards, a 4 at exceeding some standards and a 5 as exceeding most or all
standards.

Additionally, the E-7 boards are set to begin in FY 15. Yes, this is
happening and yes it is needed. This may mean the elimination of STEP to
MSgt. After all, if we are boarding folks and they are truly exceptional
performers, they should have a score advantage on EPRs and should do very
well on the boards.

The strat process for SNCOs will be changing a bit as well. Mandated strats
will be top 10% of MSgts and top 20% of SMSgts. You will note that this is
very much in line with historical promotion rates for these grades. Coupled
with that, the only people receiving Senior Rater Endorsement will be those
who have received the SRs strat. There will be more to follow with this, I
am sure, regarding strat rules and who can give them etcetera.

There will be a CMSgt EPR. This is a shorter EPR that includes suggested
positions that the Chief should be filling in the near future. One of
those blocks (again, draft only) says Approve for Retirement. 'Nuff said on
that I think.

I know that these changes look pretty monumental, and I can assure you that
they are. I think you will all agree, however, that no one was going to
change the old system from our level--it required an institutional change.
The only way to make this work like it should is to embrace it for what it
is rather than trying to hold on to what we have been doing in the past
(which has NOT worked). There are huge advantages to these new changes, and
as we move forward, I would ask that you look at the merit of the new
system. Give it an honest look and you will come away with the same
perspective I have; we finally have what we have been asking for, and it is
going to be a good system!

Filterbing
09-30-2013, 07:42 PM
I do agree with the email though. There is no way that supervisors are going to collectively start handing out 3 EPRs without being universally forced to do so. It had to come from the top.

TIMtationX
09-30-2013, 08:19 PM
So, stratification will go down to TSgt and SSgt basically.

Also, why would failed pt test mean referral, if no pt test box.

My biggest question is, how strictly performance based, do you
Pick the top 5%?

I honestly don't think they've thought that far ahead yet. I definitely see this thing getting delayed past FY14.

Silverback
09-30-2013, 08:53 PM
I honestly don't think they've thought that far ahead yet. I definitely see this thing getting delayed past FY14.

I agree, these are going to be some huge changes. It will more than likely take some time to start.

jondstewart
09-30-2013, 09:06 PM
Email received today
_____________________________________________

New EPRs on the way in FY 14. Big changes:

PT will be removed from the form. This does NOT mean that PT no longer
matters--PT failure still constitutes a referral EPR.

This is a PERFORMANCE based EPR. The vast majority of this EPR addresses
how you are doing in your job day-to-day and how well you are meeting what
is expected of an Airman. There will be a lot more information on the EPR
form with guidance on exactly what it is you are supposed to be evaluating.
The feedback mechanism will change a bit also as will the feedback form.
The feedback form will be revamped and will possibly be introduced as part
of the record along with the EPR--in the end, as a supervisor, you will be
MUCH better prepared to write the EPR and your personnel will not be
surprised by what they receive.

For WAPS scoring, only the top three EPRs will be looked at for scoring.
The top EPR will be worth 60% of your EPR score, the second will be worth
30% and the last will be worth 10%.

Time in Service/Time in Grade points will no longer be factored in. Some
may be concerned about the "experience" factor being lost in promotion
consideration. If you consider, however, the people who are experienced and
really top shelf will be scored higher on their EPRs and will have a
distinct score advantage, this should go a long way towards differentiating
between the "experienced performer" and the "experienced meeting standards."

Consideration is being given to have all EPRs for a particular grade
closeout on the same day. Also, looking into eliminating the CRO EPR and
possibly replacing this with an LOE. These two steps make sure everyone
gets a good year report rather than sometimes receiving a 4 month report.

Only the top 5% on SSgt and TSgt EPRs will receive a 5, and the next 20%
will receive 4s. This will put the majority of people at a 3 which remains
meeting standards. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people
because right now, the vast majority of our personnel are receiving 5s (and
firewall at that). This inflation has built a false confidence across our
enlisted force that everyone is a rock star. It has also meant that a 3 or
a 4 on an EPR means you are doing something really wrong. The language on
the new EPR (not finalized, just in rough draft) has a 3 as meeting
standards, a 4 at exceeding some standards and a 5 as exceeding most or all
standards.

Additionally, the E-7 boards are set to begin in FY 15. Yes, this is
happening and yes it is needed. This may mean the elimination of STEP to
MSgt. After all, if we are boarding folks and they are truly exceptional
performers, they should have a score advantage on EPRs and should do very
well on the boards.

The strat process for SNCOs will be changing a bit as well. Mandated strats
will be top 10% of MSgts and top 20% of SMSgts. You will note that this is
very much in line with historical promotion rates for these grades. Coupled
with that, the only people receiving Senior Rater Endorsement will be those
who have received the SRs strat. There will be more to follow with this, I
am sure, regarding strat rules and who can give them etcetera.

There will be a CMSgt EPR. This is a shorter EPR that includes suggested
positions that the Chief should be filling in the near future. One of
those blocks (again, draft only) says Approve for Retirement. 'Nuff said on
that I think.

I know that these changes look pretty monumental, and I can assure you that
they are. I think you will all agree, however, that no one was going to
change the old system from our level--it required an institutional change.
The only way to make this work like it should is to embrace it for what it
is rather than trying to hold on to what we have been doing in the past
(which has NOT worked). There are huge advantages to these new changes, and
as we move forward, I would ask that you look at the merit of the new
system. Give it an honest look and you will come away with the same
perspective I have; we finally have what we have been asking for, and it is
going to be a good system!

Holy crap, will this really be implemented? Why the hell couldn't they have done that in my day? You had SSgt's that had 5 years in that were complete complete pooh pooh bags and those that made at at HYT that were more than deserving of their new rank!

imported_DannyJ
09-30-2013, 10:01 PM
5%? I strongly disagree with that. I would sugguest breaking it at 10%. How many units out there have 20 TSgts?

imnohero
10-01-2013, 12:45 AM
I see the unintendent consequences coming into play.

BRUWIN
10-01-2013, 01:56 AM
I believe that nobody should bitch when this new system is implemented. Everybody bitched and leadership was listening. So you will get a new system. No system is perfect...but give it some time before complaining. For those that don't like the new system once it comes along...consider it a life lesson in being careful for what you wish for because I can almost guarendamntee you some of the same people that bitched about the old system will be bitching about the new one.

Class5Kayaker
10-01-2013, 02:33 AM
This is going to kill guys who PCS a few months before the EPR closeout date since they're going to all close out at the same time. Does anyone think that TSgt Snuffy who just PCS'd in three months before the EPR closes out and spent the last couple of months househunting and inprocessing will get a 5 or even a 4 over the guys who have been working in that same shop for the last couple of years? Hell, I'd even argue that unless you have at least 3/4 of that rating period at your new unit you won't be a 5.

imnohero
10-01-2013, 03:40 AM
Class5....I would think that depends, maybe, on how they implement it. But common sense says, the "known by leadership" guy will stand a better chance to end up on the higher quota, vs. the "new guy" that just PCS'd in.

The percentage thing isn't exactly great for small units either. At least on it's face.

I'm taking a wait and see approach, let's see what the new forms, rating descriptions, LOE requirements, etc. look like.

Monkey
10-01-2013, 11:50 AM
The strat process for SNCOs will be changing a bit as well. Mandated strats will be top 10% of MSgts and top 20% of SMSgts. You will note that this is very much in line with historical promotion rates for these grades. Coupled with that, the only people receiving Senior Rater Endorsement will be those who have received the SRs strat. There will be more to follow with this, I am sure, regarding strat rules and who can give them etcetera.

For MSgts, would this top 10% be AFSC specific? Currently strats are not (at least not in my experience) based on AFSC. Would there even be a need for WAPS testing for SMSgt anymore?

pjluckyman
10-01-2013, 01:06 PM
My responses to this email are at the end of each paragraph.

New EPRs on the way in FY 14. Big changes:

PT will be removed from the form. This does NOT mean that PT no longer
matters--PT failure still constitutes a referral EPR. (Works either way for me I think it weighed to heavy on things anyways. Especially when it weighs more than a drunk on duty the previous year and still gets SRE the next)

This is a PERFORMANCE based EPR. The vast majority of this EPR addresses
how you are doing in your job day-to-day and how well you are meeting what
is expected of an Airman. There will be a lot more information on the EPR
form with guidance on exactly what it is you are supposed to be evaluating.
The feedback mechanism will change a bit also as will the feedback form.
The feedback form will be revamped and will possibly be introduced as part
of the record along with the EPR--in the end, as a supervisor, you will be
MUCH better prepared to write the EPR and your personnel will not be
surprised by what they receive. (Great idea. I like the thought of a little more direction on what should discussed in a particular area.)

For WAPS scoring, only the top three EPRs will be looked at for scoring.
The top EPR will be worth 60% of your EPR score, the second will be worth
30% and the last will be worth 10%. (Can’t wait to see the calculation for this.)

Time in Service/Time in Grade points will no longer be factored in. Some
may be concerned about the "experience" factor being lost in promotion
consideration. If you consider, however, the people who are experienced and
really top shelf will be scored higher on their EPRs and will have a
distinct score advantage, this should go a long way towards differentiating
between the "experienced performer" and the "experienced meeting standards."(Don’t know how this is going to figure in either way. Once you get to SMSgt I don’t know that it really makes a difference because of the board score. When you are getting promoted on the first or second time was 8 points over the guy who was testing for his first time really an advantage?)

Consideration is being given to have all EPRs for a particular grade
closeout on the same day. Also, looking into eliminating the CRO EPR and
possibly replacing this with an LOE. These two steps make sure everyone
gets a good year report rather than sometimes receiving a 4 month report. ( In theory a good idea. But what happens when a guy PCS’s in the middle of the rating period to or from overseas or overseas to overseas where he is on leave for 30 days in between along with travel? Do you adjust the PCS process so that a specific rank PCS’s a month after EPR closeouts? SrA all PCS in April just after PECD? Or will it be “Sorry we have given out all of our 5’s and 4’s so you get a 3.)

Only the top 5% on SSgt and TSgt EPRs will receive a 5, and the next 20%
will receive 4s. This will put the majority of people at a 3 which remains
meeting standards. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people
because right now, the vast majority of our personnel are receiving 5s (and
firewall at that). This inflation has built a false confidence across our
enlisted force that everyone is a rock star. It has also meant that a 3 or
a 4 on an EPR means you are doing something really wrong. The language on
the new EPR (not finalized, just in rough draft) has a 3 as meeting
standards, a 4 at exceeding some standards and a 5 as exceeding most or all
standards.

Additionally, the E-7 boards are set to begin in FY 15. Yes, this is
happening and yes it is needed. This may mean the elimination of STEP to
MSgt. After all, if we are boarding folks and they are truly exceptional
performers, they should have a score advantage on EPRs and should do very
well on the boards.(wow we have enough manpower and time to go thru all of those TSgt EPR’s?)

The strat process for SNCOs will be changing a bit as well. Mandated strats
will be top 10% of MSgts and top 20% of SMSgts. You will note that this is
very much in line with historical promotion rates for these grades. Coupled
with that, the only people receiving Senior Rater Endorsement will be those
who have received the SRs strat. There will be more to follow with this, I
am sure, regarding strat rules and who can give them etcetera.( Refer to my answer to the EPR’s closing out at the same time. “Sorry no strats for you we did those a few months ago”! This already happens for those people that PCS in the middle or end of the year. I don’t think I ever PCS’d right after SMSgt release when they start getting the folders together for strats for the next year. Overall If you think the strat process is about bake sales and kissing the Chiefs a$$ now this is going to magnify this to a whole new level. The good ole boy club will be a rocking.)

There will be a CMSgt EPR. This is a shorter EPR that includes suggested
positions that the Chief should be filling in the near future. One of
those blocks (again, draft only) says Approve for Retirement. 'Nuff said on
that I think. (About damn time!)

I know that these changes look pretty monumental, and I can assure you that
they are. I think you will all agree, however, that no one was going to
change the old system from our level--it required an institutional change.
The only way to make this work like it should is to embrace it for what it
is rather than trying to hold on to what we have been doing in the past
(which has NOT worked). There are huge advantages to these new changes, and
as we move forward, I would ask that you look at the merit of the new
system. Give it an honest look and you will come away with the same
perspective I have; we finally have what we have been asking for, and it is
going to be a good system!

pjluckyman
10-01-2013, 01:19 PM
My wife is in a career field that is less than 50% manned and half of those aren't even eligible to test because of lack of time in grade or they have selected retirement instead of going to the ROK. They have bases authorized 1 with 3 assigned and bases with SSgt's and TSgt's running the shops. Most if not all bases are only authorized one MSgt at the most so how do you rate that person? How do you justify them not getting the five?

BOSS302
10-01-2013, 01:59 PM
Email received today
_____________________________________________

New EPRs on the way in FY 14. Big changes:

PT will be removed from the form. This does NOT mean that PT no longer
matters--PT failure still constitutes a referral EPR.

This is a PERFORMANCE based EPR. The vast ....words

This is about as official as passing along information someone heard from Brent's buddy Jared, who heard it from Kyle's girlfriend's BFF who first read it on Twitter.

Official announcement or GTFO.

20+Years
10-01-2013, 03:43 PM
Yeah, I am wondering who wrote it at "our level".

This process would defintely F things up at the SMSgt level. Consider a unit with 6 SMSgts. 1 is the Superintendent, and typically that is the who has TIG. If this older guy is ho-hum, with one or two folks better qualified beneath them, who do you think will get the 5? The CCs right hand, or the guys at flight level.

With inflation and everyone at a 5, the board has to look at the packages to decide. With a quota system, they have the 5, 4, 3 laid out before them. Then you can throw in the 1 SMSgt in another unit who will auto 5. This system would be too dependent on luck-of-the-draw duty positions.

BOSS302
10-01-2013, 04:08 PM
Yeah, I am wondering who wrote it at "our level".

This process would defintely F things up at the SMSgt level. Consider a unit with 6 SMSgts. 1 is the Superintendent, and typically that is the who has TIG. If this older guy is ho-hum, with one or two folks better qualified beneath them, who do you think will get the 5? The CCs right hand, or the guys at flight level.

With inflation and everyone at a 5, the board has to look at the packages to decide. With a quota system, they have the 5, 4, 3 laid out before them. Then you can throw in the 1 SMSgt in another unit who will auto 5. This system would be too dependent on luck-of-the-draw duty positions.

The system we have now is a good system. It's the people using the system who fuck it up. It was the same with the system before and will be the same with any new system that comes after our current one. Systems, with checks and balances and rules and regulations, are rational, functional, and stable. It's the human factor that fucks it all up - from parliamentary/republican processes all the way down to our little world of EPRs/OPRs.

The AF keeps reinventing the wheels when it needs to focus on the driver.

Filterbing
10-01-2013, 04:08 PM
This is about as official as passing along information someone heard from Brent's buddy Jared, who heard it from Kyle's girlfriend's BFF who first read it on Twitter.

Official announcement or GTFO.

whoa, surprised you didn't know that policy announcements come from forum post and email rumors. (sarcasm)

Easy cupcake, no one said this was legit.

BOSS302
10-01-2013, 04:22 PM
whoa, surprised you didn't know that policy announcements come from forum post and email rumors. (sarcasm)

Easy cupcake, no one said this was legit.

Right.

Mastercone
10-01-2013, 11:05 PM
My responses to this email are at the end of each paragraph.

New EPRs on the way in FY 14. Big changes:
....
For WAPS scoring, only the top three EPRs will be looked at for scoring. The top EPR will be worth 60% of your EPR score, the second will be worth 30% and the last will be worth 10%. (Can’t wait to see the calculation for this.)

This is even more generous than the errant EPR problems that I had previously discussed. In future years, the number of EPRs can be expanded to encompass larger time periods but this is a great start.



Time in Service/Time in Grade points will no longer be factored in. Some may be concerned about the "experience" factor being lost in promotion consideration. If you consider, however, the people who are experienced and
really top shelf will be scored higher on their EPRs and will have a distinct score advantage, this should go a long way towards differentiating between the "experienced performer" and the "experienced meeting standards."(Don’t know how this is going to figure in either way. Once you get to SMSgt I don’t know that it really makes a difference because of the board score. When you are getting promoted on the first or second time was 8 points over the guy who was testing for his first time really an advantage?)

This is almost a shocker but it puts a 12 year SSgt on equal footing with a 5 year SSgt instead of having a 56 point TIG & TIS point advantage rolling into a cycle. WAPS will now come down to EPRs and testing scores. This tenet alone will get the largest number of complaints from the integrated ROADS force.



Only the top 5% on SSgt and TSgt EPRs will receive a 5, and the next 20% will receive 4s. This will put the majority of people at a 3 which remains meeting standards. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people
because right now, the vast majority of our personnel are receiving 5s (and firewall at that). This inflation has built a false confidence across our enlisted force that everyone is a rock star. It has also meant that a 3 or a 4 on an EPR means you are doing something really wrong. The language on the new EPR (not finalized, just in rough draft) has a 3 as meeting standards, a 4 at exceeding some standards and a 5 as exceeding most or all standards.

While no one likes quotas, this leaves a tremendous amount of room for lower ratings to have an almost equal shot at the next stripe. They will likely need to add a training segment for supervisors on how to break the less than exciting news each reporting cycle to the less fortunate ratees. Here is an AF Form 75 Airman Performance Report from 1962 that nicely defines all of the categories between 1 and 5 that likely could apply even more under this proposal:

FLICKR photo -- USAF APR 1962: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3587/3778662356_f80564255f_o.jpg



Additionally, the E-7 boards are set to begin in FY 15. Yes, this is happening and yes it is needed. This may mean the elimination of STEP to MSgt. After all, if we are boarding folks and they are truly exceptional performers, they should have a score advantage on EPRs and should do very well on the boards.(wow we have enough manpower and time to go thru all of those TSgt EPR’s?)

This won't be pleasant for many, but let's see what happens. It's highly doubtful that they will decrease the percent eligible for E-7 in future years, so they still have to promote someone. The STEP option for E-7 should, in all fairness, be eliminated as everyone should face the board if it is required for promotion to that grade.



...Overall If you think the strat process is about bake sales and kissing the Chiefs a$$ now this is going to magnify this to a whole new level. The good ole boy club will be a rocking.)

This has always has fostered brown-nosing and there's not much that will ever be done about it as it extends to commanders as well.



.....I would ask that you look at the merit of the new system. Give it an honest look and you will come away with the same perspective I have; we finally have what we have been asking for, and it is going to be a good system!

I wish this post had existed a week ago where there was protracted banter back and forth over all of the pitfalls and possibilities of what was largely based on supposition and many unknowns. There's some great, some good, and some not so good but it has a unique balance. Moreover, all of these percentiles, quotas, etc. can be tweaked in future years for an increase in performance results. I actually like the whole package. There was some really good thought that went into all of this if, in fact, it is the actual proposed policy being considered.

In the end, the AF policymakers will do whatever they want regardless of popularity or consequences. The lingering question that will remain for years to come will be whether or not retention remains as effective as it is now.

cloudFFVII
10-01-2013, 11:49 PM
Only the top 5% on SSgt and TSgt EPRs will receive a 5, and the next 20% will receive 4s. This will put the majority of people at a 3 which remains meeting standards. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people because right now, the vast majority of our personnel are receiving 5s (and firewall at that). This inflation has built a false confidence across our enlisted force that everyone is a rock star. It has also meant that a 3 or a 4 on an EPR means you are doing something really wrong. The language on the new EPR (not finalized, just in rough draft) has a 3 as meeting standards, a 4 at exceeding some standards and a 5 as exceeding most or all standards.

Out of all the proposed changes, this is the one that has me upset.

Granted, I realize that when your EPR averages for promotion are near 135, that WAY too many people are being rated a 5 who likely don't deserve it.
However, I ALSO would like to believe that more then 5% of a given E-5/E-6 group ARE exceeding most or all standards.

I remember a lively discussion I had in my ALS class (in 2000!) regarding EPR's and our instructor told us there "is NO BELL CURVE. If you have people that should all be rated a 3, then rate them there. If you have people that are all truly exceeding the rest, then rate them there too".

If you're REALLY going to do this properly from a percentage basis, you would do this:
10% can be rated a 5
10% can be rated a 4
50% can be rated a 3
10% can be rated a 2
10% can be rated a 1

The AF doesn't have a rating scale problem, it has 3 major things that have affected EPR's:
#1: Too many supervisors who don't want to have those honest conversations with their troops, take the time to do a GOOD feedback (and not just initial/midterm, but consistently through the rating period) and rate them where they truly belong, and a lot of this stems from:
#2: Leadership absolutely not supporting a supervisor's decision to rate someone anything less then a 5, and fighting them literally every single step of the way up the chain of command, and once a supervisor has went through this a couple times, I'm sure they say to themselves "It's a lot easier to write a 5 and not deal with the BS".
#3: Trying to be everyone's best friend and not wanting make enemies, and/or being in a "clic" where you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", where you are best friends with someone you rate or additionally rate, that you go to the "club" with, etc.

The EPR system is based on INTEGRITY. And obviously, with the majority of people either giving people 5's all the time who don't deserve it, or receiving 5's when they didn't earn it either because of their status or the sheer laziness of their supervisor, most of us have a piece of the blame for such a drastic change being needed to our rating system.

As far as the other changes (going to performance only, only 3 EPR's counting towards a promotion cycle, E-7 boards, elimination of TIS/TIG points) I agree 100%.

pjluckyman
10-02-2013, 04:56 AM
This is about as official as passing along information someone heard from Brent's buddy Jared, who heard it from Kyle's girlfriend's BFF who first read it on Twitter.

Official announcement or GTFO.

I also got it in my email at work also. Just after this one arrived I got one from the CCM here and he said that those were not supposed to be released and everything is still fluid.

pjluckyman
10-02-2013, 05:12 AM
I posted this early on in the discussion and was surprised that I didn't get comments good bad or indifferent about it. Figured I would post it again in the event it was passed over by the rolling conversation.


Here is the suggestion that the wife and I submitted when the Innovative Airmen site opened up. We never heard back either way if they were going to push this up.

Also my squadron had pushed it to the group for when the CSAF/CMSAF stopped by last month and were looking for ideas to save money.

In 1989 the AF transitioned from the APR system to the EPR system in an attempt to fight the rampant inflation of ratings. After 25 years we are right where we were in 1989. The majority of ratings are in the 5 category and the force in languishing with an inflation problem.

In the beginning there was an unofficial quota system that had no guidelines. I was personally affected by this when I was the Amn of the Quarter for the squadron and subsequently received a 4 after being told that I couldn’t get a five because they had given them all out.

Over the years I have contemplated what was wrong with the evaluation system. From the first time this system was discussed in my NCO preparatory class we knew that there was going to be the AF way and the real way. The AF way was that everyone was a three and you moved up or down from there. The true way was that everyone was a five and you went down from there. I think this is the key to our suggestion. We need to get to the AF way.

Only 1 percent of the forces are CMSgt’s, 2 percent are SMSgts, and 10 percent are MSgts.

217,926 or 81.82% of the current force are in the grades of A1C-TSgt.

1. Between 4.9 and 10 man hours per report are spent preparing the documentation, review, and processing at the squadron level for their reports.

2. Between $24,178,889 and $46,407,341 dollars in personnel are spent per year in this process. With our suggestion we are looking to cut this down accordingly

1. Cut down to 50 minutes per report at the squadron level

2. Reduce cost by between $21,027,679 and $43,256,131 dollars per year.

The AF way is that the majority of people should be receiving the rating of 3 which in short terms is a person that comes to work, does their job, then goes home, in a nut shell meets all standards. If this is the case why do we spend so much time writing works of fiction on those people instead of writing packages, decorations, or LOC’s and LOR’s with facts?

On the whole in my career and thru anecdotal surveying of all ranks in preparation for this suggestion the number of 3’s is roughly around 80%. The other 20 percent are about evenly split between those that need to be recognized for their outstanding behavior and 10% who need to be administratively dealt with due to inappropriate behavior. This 20% is where our supervisory time would be better spent in the best interest of the AF. Start identifying those that truly deserve those 4’s and 5’s and rehabilitating or separating those that fall below that line.

With that in mind I think we could do this by keeping it simple and changing the stigma of what a 3 truly is and what it means, and putting the responsibility back on the ratee and rater to justify the ratings.

First a three is a good worker and someone who is not necessarily concerned with doing more or less. The AF needs good workers who are happy with what they do for the AF. I think the groups of A1C-TSgts are full of those types of people and we do them no service by giving them ratings they don’t deserve.

We start from the initial EPR and identify to the Ratee that they will not be punished for being the “good” worker and that they will still have the potential to make it to TSgt and be able to retiree.

Secondly, we need to make it clear that if the Ratee ever has any aspirations of being a SNCO, being selected for a special duty that somewhere along the line they will have to make that decision and start doing those things that are above and beyond that will be required to advance past TSgt.

With this in mind the Raters will be put on the spot to justify any ratings above or below the meets standards block with appropriate comments.

On the new form a meets standard rating will have no comments. This is the key to this system working. The reason no comments are required is because the ratee meets standards.

Any rating to the right or left one block will have one bullet.

Any rating to the far right or left two blocks will have two bullets.
Ratee’s that are in the higher or lower categories should have paperwork support for those ratings either in the form of LOC’s LOR’s or monthly, or quarterly package submissions.

The scoring system on the EPR will also change for this form. It will no longer be a straight 1 to 5. You will have scores between 1 to a 5 for the overall score. Each of the five areas will be a graduated score from .2 to a full 1.0.

For WAPS testing the overall score for EPR’s will go from 135 to a max of 25 points with the last five EPR’’s being counted. In 2012 there was only a 6 point difference between the EPR average of SSgt selects and non-selects. In the TSgt testing the difference was 1.25 points. In the new system if someone had all three’s they would have 15 points for testing vs 25 points for all 5’s.

With no bullets required for an area marked as meets standards we expect that supervisors will chose the path of least resistance and rather than spending time creating bullets they will rate more honestly.

pjluckyman
10-02-2013, 06:05 AM
This is almost a shocker but it puts a 12 year SSgt on equal footing with a 5 year SSgt instead of having a 56 point TIG & TIS point advantage rolling into a cycle. WAPS will now come down to EPRs and testing scores. This tenet alone will get the largest number of complaints from the integrated ROADS force.

There are currently 68,011 SSgts of those only 5,107 are over 12 years or more for 7 percent of the total number of SSgts. There are only 2,303 SSgts at 12 years TAFMS. I don't think TIS TIG was that big of a factor for this group. Below is the SSgt numbers from AFPC IDEAS page http://access.afpc.af.mil/vbinDMZ/broker.exe?_program=ideaspub.IDEAS_Step1.sas&_service=pZ1pub1&_debug=0
EPR’s better make the difference, because now you will have taken away the experience factor that everyone has complained about since the great staff give away of 2000. I don’t know about all career fields but the SKT for Fighter Avionics at one point had so many volumes that most people didn’t open them, on top of the fact that they were several iterations behind the current avionics we saw on a day to day basis. I know the CDCS for the 3D0X1s are pretty useless for what they actually do. So now you have boiled promotion down to who can read, remember, and regurgitate the PDG…Oh and the deflation of the EPR system…
ENLISTED EXTRACT - 23SEP2013 #
TAFMS # Running Total Percentage
0 25 25 0.037%
1 1 26 0.038%
2 8 34 0.050%
3 543 577 0.848%
4 5,280 5857 8.612%
5 8,191 14048 20.655%
6 10,127 24175 35.546%
7 12,098 36273 53.334%
8 6,595 42868 63.031%
9 8,744 51612 75.888%
10 6,939 58551 86.090%
11 4,353 62904 92.491%
12 2,303 65207 95.877%
13 1,289 66496 97.772%
14 583 67079 98.630%
15 300 67379 99.071%
16 184 67563 99.341%
17 177 67740 99.602%
18 142 67882 99.810%
19 117 67999 99.982%
20 9 68008 99.996%
22 1 68009 99.997%
26 1 68010 99.999%
27 1 68011 100.000%
TOTAL 68,011

imported_StandardsAMust
10-02-2013, 10:05 AM
[I]

If you're REALLY going to do this properly from a percentage basis, you would do this:
10% can be rated a 5
10% can be rated a 4
50% can be rated a 3
10% can be rated a 2
10% can be rated a 1



First, your math is wrong (only equals 90%), second, quotas for 1 and 2's can't be mandated, third, the chief complaint about quotas is that the AF tried this back in the early 90's with bad results.

Under this proposal, all EPRs would close out on same day with no rating assigned. People PCSing will have LOEs and then a finalized EPR with no ratings. CRO's would be eliminated. Makes sense. Then, all EPRs would be reviewed by a board, most likely at wing, group or sq level, and all EPRs for a grade would then be racked and stacked.

Here's how it would work. 1 and 2 ratings would be reserved for those with obvious negative quality control indicators, 3's for the majority, 5s for the top 5%, 4s for the next 20%. So, if 100 EPRs met the board, only 5 get a 5, 20 get a 4, the rest 3's. Any EPRs that are referrals would get a lower marking.

Quotas work under this process...not under a system that has EPRs closing out all throughout the year.

BOSS302
10-02-2013, 10:23 AM
Quotas never work

Fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Bunch
10-02-2013, 12:36 PM
I have a few questions and hopefully someone can give answers.

1. Didn't the Air Force used to have a quota system? Why they got rid of it?

2. Does any other branch has right now a quota system like this? Does it count for promotion?

BENDER56
10-02-2013, 01:14 PM
If you're REALLY going to do this properly from a percentage basis, you would do this:
10% can be rated a 5
10% can be rated a 4
50% can be rated a 3
10% can be rated a 2
10% can be rated a 1

Actually, if excellence follows the standard distribution that virtually every other measurable human trait follows, it should look more like this:

5 rating; 2.2%
4 rating; 13.6%
3 rating; 68.2%
2 rating; 13.6%
1 rating; 2.2%

Bunch
10-02-2013, 01:24 PM
They had unofficial quotas suggested I heard. People blow unofficial off easily and barely listen to official
Guidance, especially commanders. Then there's other stuff they make up like first term airmen
Don't get 5s. Rational used is how can a new guy be the best, master, top, etc of anything.
Right before my first epr, boss told me the above line, gave me a 4. Even though I got 5s
After that, after 4 years they put me in for an afcm, knocked to afam, years later missed
TSgt by 0.46. Quotas need to be official, what constitutes a 5 needs to be quantified,
Ssgt and TSgt will unofficially be racked and stacked throughout year and unofficial
Commander stuff needs to be kept in check. Just my thought. I really think decorations
Will be tough for 4's and impossible for 3's. Also I see people still holding onto pt
As the be all end all. Not sure about other branch quotas, but I've heard its hard to make
E-7 in both the army and navy.

Thanks for the reply.

The reason why I ask is because these performance reports aren't supposed to be subjective but I think we all know for the most part they are. We see here almost every month a member(s) talking about how they were wrong by their raters, some complaints have merits others don't but even evaluating the merit of such complaint is subjectve.

What I fear is going to happen if a quota system is put in place is that is going to become a "hook a brother up" or a "keep whitey in power" program. If the Air Force MTF board is any indication of the amounts of complaints Air Force members generate vs other branches I expect that EPR challenges will skyrocket along with MEO and IG complaints. The sad fact is that even if 99% percent of the evaluations and subsequent rating that is given to a particular member is accurate and fair you will always see that 1% of renegade raters that will let personal biases get in the way of given a fair assesment and rating. The reason why this is not an issue now is because with the current "everyone gets a trophy" system you really have to dig deep to be allowed to give something less than a 5.

It will only take a handful of complaints about quota system being adverse to any particular race or ethnicity to bring the whole system down and Air Force be sent back to the drawing boards. The only way I see a quota system working is if leadership makes it clear that abusing this system will have an adverse impact on raters careers.

Monkey
10-02-2013, 01:37 PM
Thanks for the reply.

The reason why I ask is because these performance reports aren't supposed to be subjective but I think we all know for the most part they are. We see here almost every month a member(s) talking about how they were wrong by their raters, some complaints have merits others don't but even evaluating the merit of such complaint is subjectve.

What I fear is going to happen if a quota system is put in place is that is going to become a "hook a brother up" or a "keep whitey in power" program. If the Air Force MTF board is any indication of the amounts of complaints Air Force members generate vs other branches I expect that EPR challenges will skyrocket along with MEO and IG complaints. The sad fact is that even in 99% percent of the evaluations and subsequent rating that is given to a particular member is accurate and fair you will always see that 1% of renegade raters that will let personal biases get in the way of given a fair assesment and rating. The reason why this is not an issue now is because with the current "everyone gets a trophy" system you really have to dig deep to be allowed to give something less than a 5.

It will only take a handful of complaints about quota system being adverse to any particular race or ethnicity to bring the whole system down and Air Force be sent back to the drawing boards. The only way I see a quota system working is if leadership makes it clear that abusing this system will have an adverse impact on raters careers.

Wow. I would like to spend a day in your shoes so I might gain an understanding of your perspective.

So it's not simply favoritism that you fear. Instead you believe only racial discrimination will destroy the integrity of the ratings.

Bunch
10-02-2013, 01:46 PM
Wow. I would like to spend a day in your shoes so I might gain an understanding of your perspective.

So it's not simply favoritism that you fear. Instead you believe only racial discrimination will destroy the integrity of the ratings.

Favoritism will play a part no doubt. I just believe the racial element will be a part also.

imported_UncommonSense
10-02-2013, 01:49 PM
I posted this early on in the discussion and was surprised that I didn't get comments good bad or indifferent about it. Figured I would post it again in the event it was passed over by the rolling conversation.

I recommended something similar back in November 2011 (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1591083-Hate-the-EPR-want-to-vent-to-the-AF-Community&p=484435&highlight=#post484435)

Pullinteeth
10-02-2013, 02:08 PM
Favoritism will play a part no doubt. I just believe the racial element will be a part also.

I will give you this, at least your paranoia is balanced, you think blacks and whites will both rate based on race...

Bunch
10-02-2013, 02:28 PM
I will give you this, at least your paranoia is balanced, you think blacks and whites will both rate based on race...

Yes. All races, white/blacks/hispanics/asian/natives and others, have a propensity for racial biases but that doesn't mean that every individual in every race act on their biases and thats why racism even if its a problem today is not as big as it was 10-20-50 years ago.

From experience I know that there are racist people in the Air Force of ALL races and I seriously doubt their hability to make fair and unbiased assessment of their troops specially those who are "different" than them.

20+Years
10-02-2013, 02:29 PM
I hate to admit this, but I have seen wg strats go haywire due to both favoritism and race. I wish ALL our Airmen had good integrity. I have no doubt the same would happen with 5% of 5s.

Bunch
10-02-2013, 02:33 PM
Not going to comment on racial aspect.
There's talk of revamping feedback,
Where's its more official and part of epr.
So, 3 months your gonna be a 4, 6 months
I'm telling you your a 4 still, 9 months
Im telling you your a 4 still. 12 months
I told you your a 4 all year, here's your epr
It's a 4 and all feedbacks are stapled to it
Electronically.

I think those type changes to the way feedback is conducted will help a great deal.

SomeRandomGuy
10-02-2013, 02:45 PM
Not going to comment on racial aspect.
There's talk of revamping feedback,
Where's its more official and part of epr.
So, 3 months your gonna be a 4, 6 months
I'm telling you your a 4 still, 9 months
Im telling you your a 4 still. 12 months
I told you your a 4 all year, here's your epr
It's a 4 and all feedbacks are stapled to it
Electronically.

I think this would be the most important part of the system. One time my rater tried to give me a 4 on an EPR that I never recieved a feedback during the entire rating period. Conveinently there was a dated listed when feedback was accomplished and I was supposed to verify that date. I told my rater I would sign the 4 if he left the feedback block blank. Instead the EPR got changed to a 5 and we both signed what amounts to a false official document.


If feedbacks were done quarterly and required to be turned in with the EPR it would help a lot with justifying the ratings but then we come back to the same old issue (see picture below)

http://pinkunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tumblr_mjbe99xogs1rxahm2o1_500.jpg?w=590

BRUWIN
10-02-2013, 04:43 PM
At my group, strats were given to senior guys who
Had one last shot to make rank or get HYTed.

The whole strat thing was a crock while I was in. Where I was at the majority of strats I saw given were for those that were close to being promoted last cycle and those in key positions such as numbered AF first sergeant. As Chief's we couldn't even debate the numbered AF first sergeant strat. That was the General's guy and he was getting one....usually the #1 strat. I was normally ok with it because they usually filled that position with a top notch guy. I just think it shouldn't have been dictated.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-02-2013, 07:52 PM
Fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Weird how they do for MSgt and SMSgt strat process...sounds like a quota system to me.

imported_KnuckleDragger
10-02-2013, 08:19 PM
Ongoing honest feedback.

In this new system, always tell your troops they need to improve...in all areas. Otherwise a 4 or 5 is implied.

Sounds like common sense. Unfortunately, many lazy supervisors will unintentionally burn their troops, or look like a two face asshat come EPR time.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-02-2013, 09:13 PM
How do you think morale will be...
Feedbacks will be like "sorry I can only give one 5 EPR and tsgt jones has a bachelors, a better title than you and heads the PTA -
your on track to get a 4, sign here and get back to work"
Then EPR time comes and they'll be like "I told you the 5's already gone, nice that you tried to improve by volunteering, but here's
your 4 EPR, sign here and get back to work and don't sweat the 40 points you need to make up cuz the 4 is 60% of your WAPS epr score"

Now imagine the feedback and EPRs for people getting 3, 2 and 1 EPRs.
Sounds like some honest feedback. You all are missing the point here. Under this system, the best will get the highest ratings and all EPRs will be boarded for score. Supervisors won't rate a score. Geez. What's so hard to understand here?

A 5, 4, 3 EPR will be different vs what we know today since the vast majority will be getting a 3 anyway.

imported_KnuckleDragger
10-02-2013, 10:11 PM
Sounds like some honest feedback. You all are missing the point here. Under this system, the best will get the highest ratings and all EPRs will be boarded for score. Supervisors won't rate a score. Geez. What's so hard to understand here?

A 5, 4, 3 EPR will be different vs what we know today since the vast majority will be getting a 3 anyway.

Supervisors won't rate a score.

Fundamental change to the current system.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-03-2013, 05:35 AM
I must have missed where EPRs would all be boarded for score. So supervisors mark the front,
then it goes to a board where they have the knowledge to rack and stack scores?
And this will be for all EPRs? Someone please help me out, I missed the train.

Under a quota system, supervisors can't rate a person a 5,4,3 etc. they simply don't have enough information. Everyone is trying to think about this under our current system. Put simply. All EPRs would be written by the supervisor and then a board will be get to rack and stack them based on merit. Scores would then be applied based on quota percentages. Real simple process.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-03-2013, 06:55 AM
Ok, I am tracking now. Is this just wishful thinking or is this what you are hearing?
I cannot imagine someone other than the supervisor knowing what someone should get,
but that's just me, who doesn't trust boards or leaders.

It's the only way a quota system will work. The AF made a huge mistake in the 90's when they hap-hazardly tried this. Think in terms of SSgt and TSgts getting strated like SNCO's and the picture becomes much clearer.

sandsjames
10-03-2013, 11:20 AM
Under a quota system, supervisors can't rate a person a 5,4,3 etc. they simply don't have enough information. Everyone is trying to think about this under our current system. Put simply. All EPRs would be written by the supervisor and then a board will be get to rack and stack them based on merit. Scores would then be applied based on quota percentages. Real simple process.

So it will turn into a goat rope like racking and stacking awards packages? Where everyone has a different view of which bullets are the best. Great, so in CE, Fire Department will get all the 5s, everyone else will get something else. Awesome.

imported_StandardsAMust
10-03-2013, 12:11 PM
So it will turn into a goat rope like racking and stacking awards packages? Where everyone has a different view of which bullets are the best. Great, so in CE, Fire Department will get all the 5s, everyone else will get something else. Awesome.

Do all the Fire Dept SNCOs get all the strats?

sandsjames
10-03-2013, 12:32 PM
Do all the Fire Dept SNCOs get all the strats?

The fire department always win the awards...by the nature of their jobs, their bullets sound impressive, even though it's their normal duty. Can't speak for strats

SomeRandomGuy
10-03-2013, 12:46 PM
The fire department always win the awards...by the nature of their jobs, their bullets sound impressive, even though it's their normal duty. Can't speak for strats

The same thing happens in a lot of units. My first base was WPAFB. They have a large Intel unit called NASIC. I am not sure of the exact breakout but I would say that 90% of the assigned Personnel are in Intel career fields and then maybe 10% are support career fields. Since it was a large unit they were authorized to handle their own BTZ boards. During the time I was there they never had a single Amn other than Intel win SrA Below the Zone. If you were COMM, Personnel, Finance, etc you could forget about winning an award. No matter how well you write your package it means nothing being judged by a board of Intel people who consider their core mission much more important than anything you do to support them. The same thing will happen with an EPR quota system. If you are unlucky enough to get assigned to a unit where you are a minority AFSC you probably will not get one of the few cherished 5s.

Mastercone
10-03-2013, 06:59 PM
I also got it in my email at work also. Just after this one arrived I got one from the CCM here and he said that those were not supposed to be released and everything is still fluid.

In other words, it was a trial balloon to measure target audience response.

Filterbing
10-03-2013, 07:12 PM
In other words, it was a trial balloon to measure target audience response.


I would rather know what these select people making these decisions are considering. I think its crap that these types of things are not brought before a larger audience for a sanity check and public debate.

Filterbing
10-03-2013, 07:31 PM
Remember the tucking into boots debacle?

They just never learn.

exactly!

Mastercone
10-03-2013, 07:59 PM
There are currently 68,011 SSgts of those only 5,107 are over 12 years or more for 7 percent of the total number of SSgts. There are only 2,303 SSgts at 12 years TAFMS. I don't think TIS TIG was that big of a factor for this group. Below is the SSgt numbers from AFPC IDEAS page http://access.afpc.af.mil/vbinDMZ/broker.exe?_program=ideaspub.IDEAS_Step1.sas&_service=pZ1pub1&_debug=0
EPR’s better make the difference, because now you will have taken away the experience factor that everyone has complained about since the great staff give away of 2000. I don’t know about all career fields but the SKT for Fighter Avionics at one point had so many volumes that most people didn’t open them, on top of the fact that they were several iterations behind the current avionics we saw on a day to day basis. I know the CDCS for the 3D0X1s are pretty useless for what they actually do. So now you have boiled promotion down to who can read, remember, and regurgitate the PDG…Oh and the deflation of the EPR system…
ENLISTED EXTRACT - 23SEP2013 #
TAFMS # Running Total Percentage
<............BREVITY REDACTION...............>
12 2,303 65207 95.877%
13 1,289 66496 97.772%
14 583 67079 98.630%
15 300 67379 99.071%
16 184 67563 99.341%
TOTAL 68,011

The most glaring flaw in your analysis is that ONLY 37,402 of the 68,011 SSgts (ESTIMATED) which you emphasized were eligible for promotion. On the TIG-TIS points alone, if we simply examine the latest promotion statistics for E-6 from the 12E6 cycle, you should be able to more clearly understand the illustration in my previous post:

CYCLE 12E6: AF Averages
--------------------YRS-----YRS-------------TIG-----TIS
--------------------NBR-----TIG-----TIS-----PTS-----PTS-----EPR-----SKT-----PFE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES----37,402--3.99----9.28----30.36---20.82---131.73--48.42---64.53
NONSELECT-----------28,884--3.58----8.90----27.92---20.06---131.44--46.39---61.33
SELECTEE-------------8,518--5.39---10.58----38.64---23.42---132.69--55.39---75.37

AFPC LINK -- CYCLE 12E6: AF Averages http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120621-010.pdf

Keeping in mind that TIG & TIS points are calculated to the end of the promotion cycle(at least it used to be), ALL of these points would be eliminated under the plan you posted. Without TIG & TIS points, there is literally no difference between 5 year SSgt or a 10 year SSgt or any other SSgt other than TEST SCORES, EPRs, and DECORATIONS. Under this system, test scores would count for a maximum of 200 points versus only 160 points for EPRs & Decorations.

I've seen references on this board about younger promotees being referred to as 'professional test takers', etc. They're not. The difference is that they figured out in well in advance of many others that if you're in the service for a career then you have to COMPETE to get ahead and WAPS has always been about competition. In 1985, I had a good friend of mine get selected for MSgt first time up at age 26. If he can do it, then anyone can do it. That's the point. They are out there, even today, but they were able to do it because they really studied, had some luck, and obviously had competitors that did not equally apply themselves to the task.

Eliminating the TIS-TIG point spread eliminates this cumulative cushion that members with seniority have come to enjoy for decades. In the end I would be surprised if they eliminated it but, if they did, it would at least force everyone to start studying AND performing or be prepared to work for the very subordinates that you once supervised in the future.

Mastercone
10-03-2013, 08:20 PM
I would rather know what these select people making these decisions are considering. I think its crap that these types of things are not brought before a larger audience for a sanity check and public debate.

Oh, I fully agree. In case you haven't noticed, the Air Force has never been a democracy. Anyone that has been around long enough knows that whatever they are planning has likely already been decided and all of these 'leaks' are just preparatory fluff, banter, and teasing. I've said all along that the least destructive plan would be to achieve support from the very grade population that would eventually be affected. Unfortunately, whatever they have planned is repulsive enough to keep under wraps until it is too late.

There's no shortage of TIMES stories about the issue. The one consistent theme is to hammer down the EPR scores:

EPR scores would suffer under proposal - Air Force Times http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20100705/NEWS/7050308/EPR-scores-would-suffer-under-proposal

Ideas for improving EPRs - Air Force Times http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20090728/NEWS/907280329/Ideas-improving-EPRs

New rules aimed at stopping EPR inflation - Army Times http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130204/NEWS/302040326/New-rules-aimed-stopping-EPR-inflation

Mastercone
10-03-2013, 08:21 PM
I would rather know what these select people making these decisions are considering. I think its crap that these types of things are not brought before a larger audience for a sanity check and public debate.

Oh, I fully agree. But anyone that has been around long enough knows that whatever they are planning has likely already been decided and all of these 'leaks' are just preparatory fluff, banter, and teasing. I've said all along that the least destructive plan would be to achieve support from the very grade population that would eventually be affected. Unfortunately, whatever they have planned is repulsive enough to keep under wraps until it is too late.

There's no shortage of TIMES stories about the issue. The one consistent theme is to hammer down the EPR scores.

DWWSWWD
10-03-2013, 09:06 PM
Regarding TIS/TIG - A 10yr MSgt is not the same and is not necessarily as useful as a 15yr MSgt. They should get consideration for their experience in the Air Force and experience in the stripe. They've been more places, they've been in varied leadership positions for longer periods of time. It matters.

Measure Man
10-03-2013, 10:38 PM
Regarding TIS/TIG - A 10yr MSgt is not the same and is not necessarily as useful as a 15yr MSgt. They should get consideration for their experience in the Air Force and experience in the stripe. They've been more places, they've been in varied leadership positions for longer periods of time. It matters.

My first inclination was to agree with your point. It was also my first reaction when I read it.

But if "experience matters"...shouldn't it show in non-inflated EPR ratings??

I also kind of believe some of the old hats will get some additional push on the "5 quota" due to them trying for so long...sympathy 5s, if you will, or at least 4s.

sandsjames
10-03-2013, 11:09 PM
My first inclination was to agree with your point. It was also my first reaction when I read it.

But if "experience matters"...shouldn't it show in non-inflated EPR ratings??

I also kind of believe some of the old hats will get some additional push on the "5 quota" due to them trying for so long...sympathy 5s, if you will, or at least 4s.

I imagine the "older" ones will actually get the opposite of the sympathy 5. The younger ones will be pushed because they are "fast burners". You'll hear words like "motivated" and "goal oriented" in the conversation, when actually what they mean is "It's easier to get the younger one to do whatever the fuck we want him to do.

Measure Man
10-03-2013, 11:25 PM
I imagine the "older" ones will actually get the opposite of the sympathy 5. The younger ones will be pushed because they are "fast burners". You'll hear words like "motivated" and "goal oriented" in the conversation, when actually what they mean is "It's easier to get the younger one to do whatever the fuck we want him to do.

I don't think so. Unless the younger troop is a truly rising star...it will be tough to crack that 5 nut if it remains only 5%.

For one...I think the old hats will get a push as mentioned. Second, once someone gets one...unless they get promoted, you're gonna have to knock him off the top of the mountain to take the mountain...there may be a hesitation to give someone a 4 that got a 5 the previous year because it represents a downward trend. Kind of like today, there is a hesitation if a SNCO gets the #1 strat one year...to make him anything below #1 the next if he didn't get promoted. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...but a guy that was #1 kind of starts out there the next year. To be the champ, you gotta beat the champ, kind of thing...tie goes to the reigning champ.

I'd anticipate more of a "we're going to start you here at 3 and let you work your way up" attitude...I bet very very very VERY few people will get a 5 their first year in a new grade...maybe even NONE that are ineligible for promotion...they might not even get 4s. Just like SRs, even when they could, would not use their #1 strat on a guy that wasn't eligible for promotion...I'm thinking units will not use their 5s on people not eligible for promotion. I hope it doesn't come to that, but I have a hunch it might.

I'm sure the strategic planning will begin as soon as the rules are made official..

Mastercone
10-04-2013, 04:56 AM
I imagine the "older" ones will actually get the opposite of the sympathy 5. The younger ones will be pushed because they are "fast burners". You'll hear words like "motivated" and "goal oriented" in the conversation, when actually what they mean is "It's easier to get the younger one to do whatever the fuck we want him to do.

You pose an interesting dilemma. There are two sides to this issue as there is with everything else in life.

On one side, there is a more experienced group with more seniority as well as a functioning cadre of airmen who wishes to fully devote themselves and their family towards an Air Force career. They are stable, do a good job, are well liked and, between themselves and their families, are integral to the core of all facets of Air Force life.

On the other side, you have a few extraordinarily talented individuals who are eager and self-motivated toward moving up the food chain as fast as possible. They aren't much into the longstanding laid back tenets of Air Force life but they possess unique talents, energy, and abilities that the Air Force might otherwise never be able to recruit or even retain on a regular basis.

In the end, the Air Force knows that a career person is their best for the 20 most robust years of their life which is why one can retire as early as age 37. From a policymaker point of view, do you truly want to attract the folks with the best potential for shaping the future or will it be another generation of accommodating mediocrity at any cost? Any dramatic change to the EPR system will likely be designed to provide encouragement to the latter side of the coin in an effort to retain them for a full career versus a sudden departure after one or two hitches as they quickly recognize that the current system is stacked against them.

I cannot be the only one here who witnessed hundreds of occasions where a supervisor rejected an innovative idea for something far less efficient and for no other reason than because they insisted on doing it their way. How many otherwise gifted members have departed the service at the 4 or even 8 year mark due to frustration with a personnel structure that favors the average and penalizes them for their strengths?

It very well could be that the service is now focusing on ability over loyalty in an effort to increase performance to an even higher standard. In the same vein under a new system, others will either lead, follow, or just get out of the way. Regardless of the outcome, policymakers must see this as a worthwhile gamble. Corporations do it every day. Why should the Air Force be any different?

Bunch
10-04-2013, 05:01 AM
You pose an interesting dilemma. There are two sides to this issue as there is with everything else in life.

On one side, there is a more experienced group with more seniority as well as a functioning cadre of airmen who wishes to fully devote themselves and their family towards an Air Force career. They are stable, do a good job, are well liked and, between themselves and their families, are integral to the core of all facets of Air Force life.

On the other side, you have a few extraordinarily talented individuals who are eager and self-motivated toward moving up the food chain as fast as possible. They aren't much into the longstanding laid back tenets of Air Force life but they possess unique talents, energy, and abilities that the Air Force might otherwise never be able to recruit or even retain on a regular basis.

In the end, the Air Force knows that a career person is their best for the 20 most robust years of their life which is why one can retire as early as age 37. From a policymaker point of view, do you truly want to attract the folks with the best potential for shaping the future or will it be another generation of accommodating mediocrity at any cost? Any dramatic change to the EPR system will likely be designed to provide encouragement to the latter side of the coin in an effort to retain them for a full career versus a sudden departure after one or two hitches as they quickly recognize that the current system is stacked against them.

I cannot be the only one here who witnessed hundreds of occasions where a supervisor rejected an innovative idea for something far less efficient and for no other reason than because they insisted on doing it their way. How many otherwise gifted members have departed the service at the 4 or even 8 year mark due to frustration with a personnel structure that favors the average and penalizes them for their strengths?

It very well could be that the service is now focusing on ability over loyalty in an effort to increase performance to an even higher standard. In the same vein under a new system, others will either lead, follow, or just get out of the way. Regardless of the outcome, policymakers must see this as a worthwhile gamble. Corporations do it every day. Why should the Air Force be any different?

You were making such a great point...

Bunch
10-04-2013, 05:03 AM
I don't think so. Unless the younger troop is a truly rising star...it will be tough to crack that 5 nut if it remains only 5%.

For one...I think the old hats will get a push as mentioned. Second, once someone gets one...unless they get promoted, you're gonna have to knock him off the top of the mountain to take the mountain...there may be a hesitation to give someone a 4 that got a 5 the previous year because it represents a downward trend. Kind of like today, there is a hesitation if a SNCO gets the #1 strat one year...to make him anything below #1 the next if he didn't get promoted. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...but a guy that was #1 kind of starts out there the next year. To be the champ, you gotta beat the champ, kind of thing...tie goes to the reigning champ.

I'd anticipate more of a "we're going to start you here at 3 and let you work your way up" attitude...I bet very very very VERY few people will get a 5 their first year in a new grade...maybe even NONE that are ineligible for promotion...they might not even get 4s. Just like SRs, even when they could, would not use their #1 strat on a guy that wasn't eligible for promotion...I'm thinking units will not use their 5s on people not eligible for promotion. I hope it doesn't come to that, but I have a hunch it might.

I'm sure the strategic planning will begin as soon as the rules are made official..

I can easily see what you say happening. It will be the continuation of the "everyone gets a trophy" attitude only that this time seniority will take precedence.

Measure Man
10-04-2013, 05:18 AM
I can easily see what you say happening. It will be the continuation of the "everyone gets a trophy" attitude only that this time seniority will take precedence.

We'll have to see how the math works out...if the multiple factor is still 27....and MOST people are getting 3s...and the most recent report is 60% of the EPR score...a 5 on the most recent report could be worth like 40-50 WAPS points over the average person. I don't know what you mean by "everyone gets a trophy"....but I could see the "hey, this dude has been a SSgt for 8 years and he does pretty good...let's give him the 5 to get him promoted"....and 40-50 points should be enough to get almost anyone over the top.

pjluckyman
10-04-2013, 05:59 AM
The most glaring flaw in your analysis is that ONLY 37,402 of the 68,011 SSgts (ESTIMATED) which you emphasized were eligible for promotion. On the TIG-TIS points alone, if we simply examine the latest promotion statistics for E-6 from the 12E6 cycle, you should be able to more clearly understand the illustration in my previous post:

CYCLE 12E6: AF Averages
--------------------YRS-----YRS-------------TIG-----TIS
--------------------NBR-----TIG-----TIS-----PTS-----PTS-----EPR-----SKT-----PFE
AF AVG ELIGIBLES----37,402--3.99----9.28----30.36---20.82---131.73--48.42---64.53
NONSELECT-----------28,884--3.58----8.90----27.92---20.06---131.44--46.39---61.33
SELECTEE-------------8,518--5.39---10.58----38.64---23.42---132.69--55.39---75.37

AFPC LINK -- CYCLE 12E6: AF Averages http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120621-010.pdf

Keeping in mind that TIG & TIS points are calculated to the end of the promotion cycle(at least it used to be), ALL of these points would be eliminated under the plan you posted. Without TIG & TIS points, there is literally no difference between 5 year SSgt or a 10 year SSgt or any other SSgt other than TEST SCORES, EPRs, and DECORATIONS. Under this system, test scores would count for a maximum of 200 points versus only 160 points for EPRs & Decorations.

I've seen references on this board about younger promotees being referred to as 'professional test takers', etc. They're not. The difference is that they figured out in well in advance of many others that if you're in the service for a career then you have to COMPETE to get ahead and WAPS has always been about competition. In 1985, I had a good friend of mine get selected for MSgt first time up at age 26. If he can do it, then anyone can do it. That's the point. They are out there, even today, but they were able to do it because they really studied, had some luck, and obviously had competitors that did not equally apply themselves to the task.

Eliminating the TIS-TIG point spread eliminates this cumulative cushion that members with seniority have come to enjoy for decades. In the end I would be surprised if they eliminated it but, if they did, it would at least force everyone to start studying AND performing or be prepared to work for the very subordinates that you once supervised in the future.

My point with showing you the total breakdown of SSgts was to make the point that the amount of SSgts above 12 years is a small amount compared to the total of all SSgt's even if you take out half of the SSgt's there is still only a total of 13 point difference in selects and non-selects in TIG/TIS points. So on the average that is less than two years of TIG and TIS points. The average select also scored 14 points higher on the PDG. I don't think the advantage is as much as you make it out to be. Are there people that ride out till the make it on TIS/TIG sure, but I don't think there are that many. The total numbers just don't show that to be the case. When I said eligible, all of them are eligible if they meet the PECD unless otherwise eliminated by other factors like EPR's/punishment and such. Also the data you posted goes along with the data below that the majority of selects are from the largest group plus or minus a year in TIG. There is no large group of people riding it out in TIG or TIS in either group of data that I posted.

Here is the current TIG listing of SSgt's also. Around 25K are potentially eliminated by TIG minimum not being met.
TIME IN GRADE (YEARS)
0 13,531
1 11,283
2 12,145
3 11,690
4 7,987
5 6,408
6 3,123
7 1,165
8 349
9 127
10 97
11 74
12 30
14 1
15 1
TOTAL 68,011

DWWSWWD
10-04-2013, 01:40 PM
My first inclination was to agree with your point. It was also my first reaction when I read it.

But if "experience matters"...shouldn't it show in non-inflated EPR ratings??

For some but not for others. I don't penalize a new whatever for not knowing things that he shouldn't know. Is he developing as expected? It's not fair to compare him to the guy with 5 yrs TIG. I knew a guy that cross-trained as a MSgt and his first EPR in the career field was a 3 because he didn't know shit.

Chief_KO
10-06-2013, 03:20 PM
Here's an idea regarding cross trainees. No EPR in their new career field for the first year.
Could apply the same principle to those that PCS 4 months (120 days) prior to their PECD...no EPR for that year next EPR would be for a two year period...

I know, there are holes to that plan as well...as to every plan. But if the concern is that a newly retrained NCO cannot be rated against his peers with minimal/zero experience this is one way...

DWWSWWD
10-06-2013, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=Chief_KO;656827]Here's an idea regarding cross trainees. No EPR in their new career field for the first year.
QUOTE]

Learning a new job isn't an all or nothing process. Everyone has a training plan. Does the trainee know what he should 1 month out of tech school? Four months etc?

Filterbing
11-04-2013, 03:41 PM
This was talked about again at a recent commanders call that these rumors are just that. The topic will be discussed are corona and changes to be announced when "they" are ready to announce them.

This type of thinking is exactly what is wrong in the force. I get it that it's the military and we should do as we are told. Blah blah blah. On the other hand there is a lot of experience out in our force that isn't invited to these corona type meetings. Airing out ideas in a public forum, such as this, allows for some checks and balances that decision makers have routinely not sought out. The example of tucking pants into the boots is a good one, also the entire implementation of the ABU is another. We would all be wearing a bright blue smurf suits if they hadn't asked for feedback after the fact.

I don't know if these decision makers will see this or not. My hope is that they have read some of these ideas brought up throough this discussion and will talk them through. but probably not... Oh well.

Filterbing
07-31-2014, 12:04 PM
Interesting to reread some of this in light of the recent anouncement

AF-1Sgt
07-31-2014, 07:55 PM
My whole problem with EPR inflation is that even when we were working to eliminate it, there were forces at work to insist on it. Back around 1995 we had a meeting with our CC and Group CC telling us we had to eliminate EPR inflation but at the same time they told us if someone has a 4 in their three year tour at Elmo, they would not get a PCS medal...Period. What message is that sending? Later as a Shirt, we had to send up a push note to the Group CC because a TSgt had 1 markdown on 1 EPR in 3 yrs. They ended up downgrading it to an achievement. Again, what is the message being sent?

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 12:39 PM
Here's an idea regarding cross trainees. No EPR in their new career field for the first year.
Could apply the same principle to those that PCS 4 months (120 days) prior to their PECD...no EPR for that year next EPR would be for a two year period...

I know, there are holes to that plan as well...as to every plan. But if the concern is that a newly retrained NCO cannot be rated against his peers with minimal/zero experience this is one way...The problem with that is that, especially with those testing for MSgt, that test scores are going to determine whether or not you go to the board. That immediately removes a cross trainee from promotion eligibility. And, as you know, a SNCO is a management position where actual job knowledge doesn't make any difference (remember that 623s don't even apply to SNCOs) so should someone with the opportunity to get promoted to a management position have that denied just because he hasn't been in the career field long enough?