2
2
0
You have 2 troops brand new to the military:
Troop A comes to you and has no issues. Does their job to the standard set.
Troop B comes in and has a few problems the first months. Comes in late, maybe has an attitude, little things like that. But then, with proper guidance and mentorship they begin to take an active role in their career. They sometimes come in early, occasionally stay late, look for opportunities to excel in their field and have no problem helping out wherever.
Who gets a higher rating for the period?
Troop A comes to you and has no issues. Does their job to the standard set.
Troop B comes in and has a few problems the first months. Comes in late, maybe has an attitude, little things like that. But then, with proper guidance and mentorship they begin to take an active role in their career. They sometimes come in early, occasionally stay late, look for opportunities to excel in their field and have no problem helping out wherever.
Who gets a higher rating for the period?
Posted in these groups: 
Career Advice
Promotions
Career Advice Promotions
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 12
7
7
0
You're the rater, you get to decide. There's something called rater philosophy that is a factor in every senior enlisted board.
The idea is that people, not the service, should decide who should be rated higher
The idea is that people, not the service, should decide who should be rated higher
(7)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
A1C Chris Pointer I would rate higher whichever one shows the most potential, in this case Troop B.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Absent other information, they both probably get the same "meets standards" rating. Of course, in the real world there almost certain will be "other information" - so the real question becomes whether or not that other information puts one or the other ahead.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Bob W.
SFC (Join to see) - Chris, I'm not rating you on potential; I'm rating you on performance during a specific time period. With the limited information, both would be a "4" out of 5.
(0)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
They're both pretty much ratable in the same levels, but Troop B has certainly overcome some obstacles and improved his performance and more. Still, basically they're at the same level EXCEPT Troop C also comes in early and even stays late. All things even, I'd rate them the same UNLESS only one of them could make the next rank based on that current/pending appraisal. For me personally, I would "tend" go give an edge to the guy who overcame his issues - 1. So he realizes that hard work pays off, 2. In "my" mind, he's more deserving, at least to some extent.
Simply stated, it's UP TO THE RATER how he rates both based on their performance overall.
Simply stated, it's UP TO THE RATER how he rates both based on their performance overall.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
At least in the Army, the NCOER is a somewhat strange document in that it is supposed to capture a period of performance (standard is 1-year, but it could be more or less), while *also* being a snapshot of a where a particular NCO is *right now*.
So an NCO who comes in in the bottom 10% and works hard and is in the top 10% at time of rating would get a very good review (they are currently in top 10%), PROVIDED THAT there is enough meat in the period to substantiate that rating, AND that there are no MAJOR mess-ups (DUI, lost equipment, GOMOR, Art 15, etc.) from the beginning of the rating period which require being addressed. If they fixed themselves quick and performed at a high level for *most* of the time, they should probably get a good rating.
The reverse is also true - if you start out great, but let yourself slide, your NCOER will also reflect where you end up.
But all of it, good, bad, ugly, indifferent, is going to depends on what the rater can substantiate. How the rater "feels" about the NCO is irrelevant. What do the numbers say? Top squad in PT average? Or bottom? Or somewhere in between? And so on for everything the NCO has or has not done.
That being said, there is a *lot* that can be done with improvement. *Especially* improvement of the Soldiers. If a team leader takes their team from a 195 APFT average (and I know the Army is moving to the ACFT, but I don't fully understand the scoring, so bear with my "antiquated" reference) to a 250, that is more impressive (to me) than the NCO who takes their team from a 260 to a 262, *despite* the 262 being higher. But an NCO taking their *personal* APFT from 195 to 250 is still not as good as the NCO who went from a 260 to a 262. But I won't ding the NCO for starting at 195 (provided they were passing), either - as the 250 end point is what is important.
At least that is how I view it.
So an NCO who comes in in the bottom 10% and works hard and is in the top 10% at time of rating would get a very good review (they are currently in top 10%), PROVIDED THAT there is enough meat in the period to substantiate that rating, AND that there are no MAJOR mess-ups (DUI, lost equipment, GOMOR, Art 15, etc.) from the beginning of the rating period which require being addressed. If they fixed themselves quick and performed at a high level for *most* of the time, they should probably get a good rating.
The reverse is also true - if you start out great, but let yourself slide, your NCOER will also reflect where you end up.
But all of it, good, bad, ugly, indifferent, is going to depends on what the rater can substantiate. How the rater "feels" about the NCO is irrelevant. What do the numbers say? Top squad in PT average? Or bottom? Or somewhere in between? And so on for everything the NCO has or has not done.
That being said, there is a *lot* that can be done with improvement. *Especially* improvement of the Soldiers. If a team leader takes their team from a 195 APFT average (and I know the Army is moving to the ACFT, but I don't fully understand the scoring, so bear with my "antiquated" reference) to a 250, that is more impressive (to me) than the NCO who takes their team from a 260 to a 262, *despite* the 262 being higher. But an NCO taking their *personal* APFT from 195 to 250 is still not as good as the NCO who went from a 260 to a 262. But I won't ding the NCO for starting at 195 (provided they were passing), either - as the 250 end point is what is important.
At least that is how I view it.
(6)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
If there was an award for "BEST ANSWER," SFC Casey O'Mally, yours would probably get it. Great insight.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
A1C Chris Pointer A rating takes place over a period of time. It is NOT a snapshot of one particular moment in the rating period.
Troop A is middle of the road "completely satisfactory". If this is his standard of performance, he will gain the automatic promotions until the need for a competitive board comes up for a next level. He will probably not be competitive against peers - like Troop B.
Troop B, according to your model, demonstrates the desire and ability to move from a below satisfactory performer to a superior performer. This, over time, will be reflected in results achieved. B will probably also go the automatic promotion path until the competitive board, at which time his performance will set him above troop A
Just my .02
Troop A is middle of the road "completely satisfactory". If this is his standard of performance, he will gain the automatic promotions until the need for a competitive board comes up for a next level. He will probably not be competitive against peers - like Troop B.
Troop B, according to your model, demonstrates the desire and ability to move from a below satisfactory performer to a superior performer. This, over time, will be reflected in results achieved. B will probably also go the automatic promotion path until the competitive board, at which time his performance will set him above troop A
Just my .02
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google