PDA

View Full Version : New EPR Forms - Basically the Same Products as Before



Mr. Happy
01-01-2014, 03:58 PM
Just took a peek in AF Pubs at the new EPR forms (they were dated 1 Jan 2014), and virtually NOTHING changed with them. Of course they added in their Organizational Climate blip in there, but that's about it. Yea, that and quotas will fix the problem. Fitness is still its own block on the front (contrary to what was said prior to the release), still same format, same amount of lines, same product. If it weren't for the new date on the forms and the Org Climate piece, I would of believed the new forms just hadn't posted yet, but it appears this is it. Couldn't open the 931s/932s yet.

Just like how they supposedly revamped the fitness program some months ago; another missed opportunity. With the AF getting ready to get a lot smaller, this was a golden opportunity to streamline this product and get it right, or at least better, but instead all we got was lip service and status quo.

I'm ready to pull chocks.

DWWSWWD
01-01-2014, 04:59 PM
Very disappointing. PT and EPR.

BOSS302
01-01-2014, 05:08 PM
This shit sucks.

J.D.C.
01-01-2014, 06:50 PM
wow...change the form for a 2 word?

imported_AFKILO7
01-01-2014, 06:50 PM
Yes it is blatantly obvious that our Senior Leadership from the top down have their heads shoved firmly up their collective rear orifices. I would venture to guess they could throw a rock at the ground and miss. Everything they has touched has turned to shit fuck them.

John Jameson
01-01-2014, 07:12 PM
There was such high hope when the current CSAF came in that he would fix the bullshit. I believe he never came through on that "Vector" he promised over a year ago too. The AF=massive FAIL yet again. Happy to be retired from that dysfunctional organization every single flippin day.

technomage1
01-02-2014, 08:26 AM
My question is, if you committed a sexual assault or fostered a poor working environment in the past, wasn't this captured in the standards block? Why put in in the primary duty block and take away a line from that area? Isn't it small enough already with all the other stuff they want you to do for the "whole person concept" taking up lines? Heaven forbid we focus on the mission.

I can't believe someone who committed a sexual assault would have gotten a five EPR in the past just because it wasn't listed specifically on the form.

Thomas
01-02-2014, 08:29 AM
.

Thomas
01-02-2014, 08:29 AM
I hope it's not too late to hop on this negativity train, I completely agree. Absolutely a missed opportunity to drop the bullet requirements by a line or two, even if not a complete overhaul of the system.
Since it's obvious these were not reviewed before release, I'll provide that service now:
Section III, Block 1 lines are reversed. For consistency with the rest of the document, the "(For SSgt/TSgt..." line should be within the horizontal bars and the "Consider Adapting..." should be on the second line. Come on, if I can't trust our bosses to get the little stuff right, how can I trust they won't screw up our entire force?

Drackore
01-02-2014, 09:01 AM
I never had my hopes up. I liked the changes I was hearing (dropping PT was the main one) but again, I kind of knew this was going to happen. Something just told me - "don't get hopeful".

This CSAF = alllllllllll talk. He talks a great game, but that's all he's got.

BUDJR8
01-02-2014, 09:18 AM
All bark; no bite...another big swing and miss.

sandsjames
01-02-2014, 11:25 AM
So now what they've done is make it possible to give someone a "pat on the back" for not committing a sexual assault. Can I get my star for being a good boy, too?

Cookie Monster
01-02-2014, 12:20 PM
So now what they've done is make it possible to give someone a "pat on the back" for not committing a sexual assault. Can I get my star for being a good boy, too?
We call it the Good Conduct Medal.

fufu
01-02-2014, 03:18 PM
Yet another FAIL by Big Blue. What a misfire! If you are going to cut 25K people, then you need to start really focusing on the cutting requirements and time spent on non-mission essential paperwork. The EPR form needs to be condensed to less than 10 bullets. One for each category and 3-4 on the back for the Big stuff. Lets face it, other than BRUWIN who $h!ts excellence(LOL), most of us only accomplish a few major things per year. The rest is filler BS that doesn't really need to be stated.

LogDog
01-02-2014, 10:21 PM
Just took a peek in AF Pubs at the new EPR forms (they were dated 1 Jan 2014), and virtually NOTHING changed with them. Of course they added in their Organizational Climate blip in there, but that's about it. Yea, that and quotas will fix the problem. Fitness is still its own block on the front (contrary to what was said prior to the release), still same format, same amount of lines, same product. If it weren't for the new date on the forms and the Org Climate piece, I would of believed the new forms just hadn't posted yet, but it appears this is it. Couldn't open the 931s/932s yet.

Just like how they supposedly revamped the fitness program some months ago; another missed opportunity. With the AF getting ready to get a lot smaller, this was a golden opportunity to streamline this product and get it right, or at least better, but instead all we got was lip service and status quo.

I'm ready to pull chocks.
This sounds much like the middle and late 70s when you had to include the blurb "Supports the Equal Opportunity Program." I never understood this because if they didn't support it then there should have been administrative action taken against them before an EPR is due.

BOSS302
01-02-2014, 10:29 PM
So now what they've done is make it possible to give someone a "pat on the back" for not committing a sexual assault. Can I get my star for being a good boy, too?

Ding ding ding! Winner winner! The AF will turn it into a number to please Congress.

Also, watch your commanders and section chiefs use it as EPR fodder for themselves:

"Org climate ldr! Oversaw +300 mil/50 civ prsnl; zero sexual assaults--immediate promotion!!"

^^Safari had so many red lines under that "sentence."

Mr. Happy
01-02-2014, 11:00 PM
Yet another FAIL by Big Blue. What a misfire! If you are going to cut 25K people, then you need to start really focusing on the cutting requirements and time spent on non-mission essential paperwork. The EPR form needs to be condensed to less than 10 bullets.

There was absolutely zero reason for them to keep the number of lines the same. Cutting the lines on the damn things to about 10 (or even less) as you suggested would have went a long way in reducing man-hours drafting and reviewing them. Now we're stuck with this probably the next 5 years. I can guarantee a rater can paint a performance picture with less lines. In one line I can say a troop sucks on an EPR. I would had even gone a step further and dropped the whole bullets under individual headings, and went back to open fields on the back of the forms. They definitely should had reigned in the fitness BS a little on the report.

I can't believe it took them almost a year to release this joke of a product; then NOTHING really changed on it! What a joke. This new EPR deal in of itself isn't a big deal to me, but it just fuels my disgust even more with things on a larger scale with the AF right now. These people must really think the rank and file are dumb asses to pass off these fitness and evaluation changes as something of substance, but yet NOTHING really changed.

sandsjames
01-02-2014, 11:38 PM
There was absolutely zero reason for them to keep the number of lines the same. Cutting the lines on the damn things to about 10 (or even less) as you suggested would have went a long way in reducing man-hours drafting and reviewing them. Now we're stuck with this probably the next 5 years. I can guarantee a rater can paint a performance picture with less lines. In one line I can say a troop sucks on an EPR. I would had even gone a step further and dropped the whole bullets under individual headings, and went back to open fields on the back of the forms. They definitely should had reigned in the fitness BS a little on the report.

I can't believe it took them almost a year to release this joke of a product; then NOTHING really changed on it! What a joke. This new EPR deal in of itself isn't a big deal to me, but it just fuels my disgust even more with things on a larger scale with the AF right now. These people must really think the rank and file are dumb asses to pass off these fitness and evaluation changes as something of substance, but yet NOTHING really changed.

I know Chiefs will never let it fly, but how 'bout supervisors don't have to fill out all the lines? They want honest, and more, 3s, 4s, etc...so if I've got a 3 troop, I'm not going to fill all the blocks. Make it easier to give a 3/4 and more difficult to give a 5. You want a 5, you better have all the lines filled with ACTUAL relevant bullets.

BRUWIN
01-02-2014, 11:43 PM
In my experience...the more X's you get to make on an EPR form then the better the system works. I miss the days when we made our own X's. I always used my ID card to make those X's. It was fun trying to make them perfect. However, us maintenance guys always left grease stains doing it so the admin person would make us wash our hands so they wouldn't have to retype the EPR 16 times.

LogDog
01-03-2014, 02:17 AM
In my experience...the more X's you get to make on an EPR form then the better the system works. I miss the days when we made our own X's. I always used my ID card to make those X's. It was fun trying to make them perfect. However, us maintenance guys always left grease stains doing it so the admin person would make us wash our hands so they wouldn't have to retype the EPR 16 times.
You may remember before the days of computers when they were typed and if you messed up trying to "X" the block it would have be re-typed and the secretary would give you dirty looks. It was easier when the computer saved your work and all you had to do was print a new one out and re-mark it. Now, all you have to do is have the computer put the "X" where you want it, save it, and print it.

Chief_KO
01-03-2014, 03:19 AM
I know Chiefs will never let it fly, but how 'bout supervisors don't have to fill out all the lines? They want honest, and more, 3s, 4s, etc...so if I've got a 3 troop, I'm not going to fill all the blocks. Make it easier to give a 3/4 and more difficult to give a 5. You want a 5, you better have all the lines filled with ACTUAL relevant bullets.

I would send EPRs back if they were a 4 or markdowns on the front yet had no white space or all the bullets were the "single-handedly saved the world" type. The word picture should always match and support the rating. Too many think every report needs to be 100% full.

Drackore
01-03-2014, 09:19 AM
I never understood the white space thing to begin with. Drives me fucking nuts. "If I can type two lower case 'i's at the end of the line, you have too much white space!"

Seriously.

And this new EPR form did what for us? Not fixing shit like this!

pjluckyman
01-03-2014, 09:33 AM
I know Chiefs will never let it fly, but how 'bout supervisors don't have to fill out all the lines? They want honest, and more, 3s, 4s, etc...so if I've got a 3 troop, I'm not going to fill all the blocks. Make it easier to give a 3/4 and more difficult to give a 5. You want a 5, you better have all the lines filled with ACTUAL relevant bullets.

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597027-Re-EPR-Changes&p=654216#post654216
Posted this response once before.

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.

Chief_KO
01-03-2014, 11:56 AM
You may remember before the days of computers when they were typed and if you messed up trying to "X" the block it would have be re-typed and the secretary would give you dirty looks. It was easier when the computer saved your work and all you had to do was print a new one out and re-mark it. Now, all you have to do is have the computer put the "X" where you want it, save it, and print it.

First APR I wrote (circa 1985)...hand written on yellow legal pad (double spaced to allow for chain of command edits). Blank APR form attached where the x's were hand written. Admin office (after switching to the correct font ball on their IBM selectric typewriter), typed onto the form and hand-marked the X's. Report (and draft) came back to me for signature. There were only 3 typewriters in the unit (admin, QC, and 1 shared). We had two 702s (admin) a MSgt & Sgt assigned to a 20 person radar site (also had two supply troops assigned). Radar equipment was 20 - 40 years old at the time. Same unit today (if it existed) would probably have 10 or so assigned (with newer equipment), all radar AFSC with admin & supply duties performed as additional duties.

Sergeant eNYgma
01-03-2014, 01:12 PM
There was such high hope when the current CSAF came in that he would fix the bullshit. I believe he never came through on that "Vector" he promised over a year ago too. The AF=massive FAIL yet again. Happy to be retired from that dysfunctional organization every single flippin day.

From who?

Brewhound
01-03-2014, 01:26 PM
These guys never cease to amaze me with how worthless they really are. I think they need to fire the CMSAF and just do away with the position all together. When was the last time we had a guy in there that did anything worth a crap for the enlisted force? HMmmmmm……I still can't think of one.

Sergeant eNYgma
01-03-2014, 01:30 PM
I still think EPR's need to be removed from the promotion arena altogether...

DWWSWWD
01-03-2014, 02:32 PM
From who?

From me, for one. When I met him for the first time and subsequent times, for that matter, I was extremely impressed and motivated. "Something's dumb? Stop doing it." "Got an issue? Let me know about it." Stuff like that. I also knew a guy very well on the short list for CMSAF and was excited about that too. Something about this is harder than it looks apparently.

Sergeant eNYgma
01-03-2014, 02:36 PM
From me, for one. When I met him for the first time and subsequent times, for that matter, I was extremely impressed and motivated. "Something's dumb? Stop doing it." "Got an issue? Let me know about it." Stuff like that. I also knew a guy very well on the short list for CMSAF and was excited about that too. Something about this is harder than it looks apparently.

I always assume it's the politics or w/e. Just fall in line so to speak and they never argue. Then again maybe they do try to defend their positions but it seems like they......always lose. I've really seen nothing yet from this position that helps anything for me then again I've only been in 5 and change almost 6 and went through sometime with Mckinley, Roys full term, and now this guy...I've seen nothing. One place we can cut since personnel will be shown the door...but at the rank and file actually do shit.

sandsjames
01-03-2014, 03:35 PM
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597027-Re-EPR-Changes&p=654216#post654216
Posted this response once before.

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.

To be honest, I couldn't make it past the first paragraph.

SgtS
01-03-2014, 05:11 PM
I agree this was terrible execution. All this lead up to "changes to the eval system" and they add two words to block 1. Shameful and total failure to grasp the organizational climate themselves.

ske4za
01-06-2014, 02:13 AM
Personally I'm more upset that they made the format slightly wider, so if you copy and paste bullets from the old form, you end up with too much white space.