The sad thing is that the AF knows it's promotion system is screwy. Hell, it's been trying to fix it since the early 90s (and probably before that). I can't count how many changes there have been in the last 30 years, all supposedly improvements, yet still no closer than they were back then.Originally Posted by FLAPS
not to mention the ungodly amount of time and effort that is put into EPRs...crafting, writing, editing, kicking back, rewriting...talking about it, angling for it, etc.
Well, I've been retired a few years, so maybe the newer once are less time, but I dunno...a good many SNCOs spent most of their time on EPRs.
The Voice of Reason
No doubt. I went back and looked at my first EPR from the early 90s and it was so simple, and made sense. It said what I did, no real strict format, had sub-bullets if the statement needed to be longer, there were no abbreviations, a lot of white space, and was a good EPR at the time.
One of the problems when I was in was the AF expected you to work 40 hour plus, go to college at night, be active in sports/community, and study for promotion. That was just too many hours with little too little time for yourself, family, and friends. About knowing about control rosters, eprs, etc.., that knowledge come primarily from attending NCO Leadership School/Academies and experience. The experience is learned from SNCOs guidance to mid-level and junior NCOs.
Last edited by LogDog; 02-07-2019 at 06:37 PM.
The "buttkissers" will always be around so the way around it is demonstrate to the SNCOs, OICs, and commanders that you are the "go-to" person to get things done. Of course, this works if you have good commanders who are attuned to the people in their squadrons/groups.
As a TSgt, I rated a SSgt a "4" on his EPR and I had to justify it. He did only his job, was a star player on the base football team (overseas base), but took no initiative. I explained to my OIC and commander and convinced them that their perception of him was superficial but he wasn't a top performer compared to others in my flight. Top performers usually rise to the top and because they do well more work and responsibilities are given to them to the point the are overloaded where others have the same or less work to do. It's easier for those with less work or responsibilities to look like they're performing well while the overloaded top performers look like they're struggling.
Having written EPRs as well as reviewed EPRs as a group superintendent the goal is to provide an accurate assessment of the individual. In this assessment, the reporting official should, in most cases, be able to state what the person did, the impact of what was done, and quantify what was done. I recognized not everyone is a wordsmith (I certainly wasn't) but the EPR should be written in a manner that someone outside the career field would be able to understand. As a SNCO sitting on BTZ, quarterly/yearly boards the problem I had with reading an EPR was mostly what was written was routine duties they accomplished. What I looked for was what differentiated them from their peers and others from across the base. My job reviewing EPRs was to help the supervisor communicate their thoughts on the person they're reporting on. My biggest obstacle was NCOs/officers who suffered from pride of authorship and took offense that I would correct their grammar and/or punctuation and sometimes it means explaining how grammar or punctuation works.
There is no perfect system and there will never be a perfect systems. I disagree on having promotions decided on the local level because that only encourages "butt-snorkling." Unless things have changed since I retired, when a person is selected for promotion the commander is required to review the individual's PIF to ensure there is no unfavorable information in it to prevent them from being promoted. This is, although imperfect, a local check-and-balance to prevent "favorites" from being promoted over top performers.
Let's be honest. "Quantifying" is completely subjective. Joe took care of a building with 100 people in it and 10 million in equipment. Bill took care of a building with 18 people and 2.5 million in equipment. Both people are doing exactly the same job, assigned randomly to the facilities, yet if you compare those 2, who wins? Obviously Joe. Doesn't matter if he did more work, just that his numbers are bigger.
Honestly, everything should be a 3, and you have to justify if it's above or below. I don't mean "justify" as in writing better bullets, I mean as in having a "push letter" as you have to have if you want to mark someone down.
Also, ridiculous that it should be the job of a SNCO to spell/grammar/abbreviation check. Didn't know that the job of the SNCO corps was to be an English teacher. Figure out the man hours on that, a frickin' military organization wasting hundreds of man-hours (per squadron) editing. That's tax payer money wasted.
There is ZERO chance that an objective observer can determine the difference between 2 people based on an EPR. They can only judge based on the EPR writer's subjective view of their subordinates.
The questions, as a reviewer of the EPR, I'd have are what specifically did they do to "take care of a building," what type of equipment was there, and how did their actions postively impact their and their squadron's mission. Numbers alone are insufficient, you have to show impact. If you, as the supervisor, is writing that in an EPR then you're not doing your job nor are you helping your people.
I agree that everyone should start out with a "3" and it's up to the individual to upgrade or downgrade it. If you're going to give someone less than a "3" then you should have documentation readily available to support your evaluation.Honestly, everything should be a 3, and you have to justify if it's above or below. I don't mean "justify" as in writing better bullets, I mean as in having a "push letter" as you have to have if you want to mark someone down.
Even a professional writer has a editor who reviews the book before it's published. In the AF, what we "publish" most often are EPRs and before they're "published" they need to be reviewed to ensure the product meets established standards. I've heard the arguments about the waste of time the review is but it's necessary because it affects the individual career. I wouldn't have want someone who's writing skills are on the 7-grade level to determine my promotion and/or possible assignments. The EPR should read like a literate, educated person wrote it.Also, ridiculous that it should be the job of a SNCO to spell/grammar/abbreviation check. Didn't know that the job of the SNCO corps was to be an English teacher. Figure out the man hours on that, a frickin' military organization wasting hundreds of man-hours (per squadron) editing. That's tax payer money wasted.
All evaluations are subjective and part of the review process means different eyes see the EPR which, ideally, helps eliminates supervisor/endorser biases. Look at the EPR this way, it's a form of a resume that tells the reader what the person's responsibilities were, what they did, their achievements and their impact, and their potential for increased duties and responsibilities.There is ZERO chance that an objective observer can determine the difference between 2 people based on an EPR. They can only judge based on the EPR writer's subjective view of their subordinates.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote