View the Army's tough, new NCOER

[BMT (RIP)]

It’s a radical overhaul to a decades-old evaluation system.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20141009/CAREERS02/310090073/View-Army-s-tough-new-NCOER

BMT

[(1VB)compforce]

Artificial limits on the number of top marks given isn't going to fix the problems.

So take a Group and the senior enlisted. Multiple MSG, 1SG, SGM's and CSM's (think about how many there are in Group, I'm not giving the number here). The Group Commander is only allowed to rate half of them as "Most qualified" when, by definition, all of them should be "Most Qualified". Even if you say the theoretical 10% haven't been weeded out by E-9, that still should result in 90% "Most Qualified". The same situation applies to E-8. Half your Team Sergeants are going to be rated as less than "Most Qualified" and will be ranked lower than 50% of conventional E-8s

So now when HRC is looking at promotions, 50% of the Group SGM and CSMs are going to rate Lower than half the conventional CSM and SGM's and be subject to movement into the "nominative" program. How is that fair?

NCOER's need to be objective. This changes the process from one that is highly subjective to another that is highly subjective. It doesn't fix the problem, it's a change for change's sake.

[Pete]

Interesting statement "...The NCOER, in use since 1987, “has become outdated and highly inflated,” according to Sgt. Maj. Stephen McDermid, sergeant major of the evaluation systems branch of Human Resources Command..."

The NCOER form in it's current form true.

But DA Form 2166-5, 1 Jul 75, Enlisted Evaluation Report and DA form 2166-5A, 1 Jul 75, Senior Enlisted Evaluation Report were around since - well - 1975.

Both were somewhat similar in form to the "New" DA Form 2166-7, SEP 87, NCO Evaluation Report.

[PRB]

It needs changing every 10 years or so to motivate some different entries and make folks think about what to 'do'.

If you've sat on a promo board you know why.

[The Reaper]

Exactly.

The fat NCOIC over at the Finance office who has never deployed and who couldn't lead troops or pass a PT test if her life depended on it gets the same "Most Qualified" as the Silver Star recipient on his 12th tour in Afghanistan.

Moreover, she is rated higher than half of the SF NCOs down on the teams putting their lives on the line, and when it is all over, she will get the same retirement, after she puts in for the PTSD for the SF NCO chewing her ass for not doing her job.

What a great and equitable way to rate our NCOs. :rolleyes:

TR

[Streck-Fu]

The did the same thing in the Navy 10 years ago or so.

Evaluations used to be on a 1.0 to 4.0 scale. Too many 3s an 4s were being given out so instead of holding raters to the standard of the scale, the added one more level to 5.0 ranking.

For a few years, 5.0 was limited to the very best but slowly creeped back into being more common.

[Mills]

What a fucking waste of time.

Once again, another reason why SOF exemptions should be a no brainer.

So in smaller, more effective units with increased responsibility, tactically and technically, additional training, constant professional development and deployments..............

We have to leave someone holding the short straw.

We may have some guys the slipped through the cracks, but they are few and few between and usually tend to slip eventually.

IMO, we are already "Most Qualified".

The entire Army senior leadership structure can pound sand. Funny how this sorry excuse for leadership has reared its ugly head over the course of the last 4-5 years.......

[Peregrino]

We're already witnessing the consequences of this in the OER system. Our SF officers are generally top 10% of the Army. Because everyone (every MOS) must feel the pain of the drawdown equally, we are losing significant quantities of quality officers who - if they had stayed in their basic branch - would all be "promote ahead of peers". Because they're "average" SF officers, they get COMs and flat profiles don't get promoted - so they're forced out. Yet guys they went to SFAS with, who flunked out and returned to their basic branch are being promoted on time, and will most likely be retained/promoted to LTC and retire having completed a "successful" career. This new NCOER will do the same thing to the NCOs. Be prepared to see quality SF Soldiers thrown out because they "did their job" (to standards the rest of the Army can't meet) but they were "only average" when compared to their peers and they couldn't get promoted. (Yes - I'm disgruntled. I've got three quality officers in my office who are facing separation because they "only" have a COM profile, yet all three are stellar performers - they just failed to kiss the right asses to get an ACOM in their files.)

[frostfire]

Instead of OER's why don't command just get to know their troops.

Well, this still give those with above-average brownnosing and asskissing skills an advantage. I apparently failed miserably at both and paid the price...:boohoo

[Mustang Man]

What bugs me about NCOERs and OERs is exactly who rates. The raters should not only be their superiors but also as important their subordinates. Have squad leaders rate the the PLT SGT, have LT's rate their CO, and have lower enlisted rate their NCO's. I've seen my share of terrible NCO's, one that comes to mind is in charge of about 7 guys in a squad. Nearly all 7 of the guys very much don't like him and he is definitely no leader. Yet this NCO will continue to "lead" just because he is in the good ole boys club and kisses ass on the regular. Part of the problem are the men in the squad not stepping up and speaking out, therefore there needs to be a way where the subordinates of leaders can in a official manner evaluate their leaders. If something like this were implemented I think you would see one of two things.

1. Will encourage leadership to not be so concerned with kissing ass and worry more about their men's welfare and start to act and become a true leader.

OR

2. If anything will actually increase all the ass kissing down to the lowest private.

Just my opinion, thoughts?

[BlueYing]

I can understand why leadership wanted this to happen. Too many non-deserving NCOs still get inflated scores. It's a fact. Whether it be the good ole boy system or a rater who just doesn't want to put in the time or effort to do a good eval.

I do, however, agree with just about everyone else's assessments. In units like yours, one already has to be above the standards. You cannot punish someone for that once they are in the unit.

I also have another scenario. I'm in a fairly new Reserve unit. We are building up strength. Right now we have four Sergeants First Class, all of whom (because of the size of the unit) have the same senior rater. At least three of them, if I rated them, would be rated most qualified. But, as I understand it, only two of them can get that rating. How is that fair to whichever one gets the short end of the stick, who busts his butt to exceed the standard, who takes care of his troops to not be rated what he should be rated? If a position opens up that third one, who may otherwise be qualified for it gets passed over.

It's a good idea in theory, but in actuality has many drawbacks.

[(1VB)compforce]

I can understand why leadership wanted this to happen. Too many non-deserving NCOs still get inflated scores. It's a fact. Whether it be the good ole boy system or a rater who just doesn't want to put in the time or effort to do a good eval.

I do, however, agree with just about everyone else's assessments. In units like yours, one already has to be above the standards. You cannot punish someone for that once they are in the unit.

I also have another scenario. I'm in a fairly new Reserve unit. We are building up strength. Right now we have four Sergeants First Class, all of whom (because of the size of the unit) have the same senior rater. At least three of them, if I rated them, would be rated most qualified. But, as I understand it, only two of them can get that rating. How is that fair to whichever one gets the short end of the stick, who busts his butt to exceed the standard, who takes care of his troops to not be rated what he should be rated? If a position opens up that third one, who may otherwise be qualified for it gets passed over.

It's a good idea in theory, but in actuality has many drawbacks.

If I am reading this right:

A senior rater’s rating history will be maintained in a profile, and the automated system will not allow SRs to exceed the 50 percent restriction.

It's not just the immediate unit, it's all of the ratings for the history of the senior rater. So in theory for your situation you could, over the course of three rating periods, rate
SFC - A Most qualified twice, Highly Qualified once
SFC - B Most qualified twice, Highly Qualified once
SFC - C Most qualified twice, Highly Qualified once
SFC - D Anything other than most qualified all three times.

That would give you equality in your ratings for the three NCO's (and you could tell them what you are doing behind closed doors). The problem with it is that they will still end up rated marginally lower than the 50% of the rest of the army that got most qualified every time. Again, it leads to gaming the system rather than getting objective measurements against a standard.

I like the idea of 360 evaluations being included. Why can't they do something where the leader gets scored on a scale of 1-10 by the senior rater and also the subordinates. It could be a weighted average that results in the final scoring. Add that to objective things like PT score, Awards points, negative points for administrative disciplinary actions, marksmanship scores, Course and college completions with extra points for Distinguished and Honor graduate, combat points for missions performed in theatre. A wide mix of possible positive and negative scores would enable people to score highly on the NCOER if they actually did something during the period and would cut out slackers quickly. No carry over scoring. Points are only accrued if it happened during the rated period. That's just one way it could be done objectively. Yes, it sounds a lot like a microcosm of the promotion point system, but why shouldn't it be? Add in the narrative supporting documents and you have a real rating system that is fairly unbiased and would actually mean something when a board sits.

Whatever they do, it needs to be as unbiased and immune to gaming as possible.

[cedsall]

Sweet mother of god, I'm so glad I'm retired...

Figured it was only a matter of time until NCOER support forms came along.

I saw a couple of posts discussing the effect of the senior rater evaluations. Does the Army still promote by career field for senior NCO promotions? If so, wouldn't that limit the effect until a soldier gets to a board where he's competing with the rest of the Army (SMA selection or similar)?

That issue (competing with the rest of the Army) has always been around in one form or another. Prior to the SF career fields there was the question of whether or not spending your career in SF was a good or bad idea (career-wise). I served with and retired about the same time as an Infantry Major who spent his whole career in SF. The SF career fields had just been formed and I guess he decided making the move wasn't worth the paperwork. He was fortunate in that he came from a wealthy family so I guess the notion of making rank was a little abstract for him. He prefered to stay in SF and enjoy himself rather than attend to his career by commanding an Infantry company or serving in a bn or bde staff and punching his career tickets.

I was in MI but even there guys were told by their career branches that they would eventually have to go do some time in conventional MI units as a 1SG or whatever to keep their career healthy.

This is going to be a pain in everyone's butt. Good luck to you all.

[the squid]

I see this becoming political.

Just like in the Officer world, we'll have NCOs having to curry favor with their senior rater to get that top block.

So just like in the Officer world, where all things being equal, the top blocks go to those who are liked the most.