Posted on Jan 27, 2022
Can we get together and change the reg on Supplementary Reviewer requirements?
8.78K
10
6
2
2
0
SGM
NCOER
Responses: 4
2
2
0
I don't think that's much of a stretch to have the option of a Supplementary reviewer in an effort to have an NCO advocate in the NCOER process.
I see your problem SGM. You have an E5 being rated by say an E6 with the CPT as the Sr, and you are cut out of the loop. When in reality, say the CPT in this example is new to the rank and hasn't done many Evals and the NCOER gets kicked ack by HRC many times.
So, as mentioned, a white paper would help influence the decision. I would attack it from a pure administrative solution where by a long term career Sr NCO like yourself could
1) Help the administrative flow and the first pass approval rates sent to HRC without need for correction.
2) Speak as an advocate for the NCO eval process who can help compose an NCOER in the best interest of the Army and the rated NCO's career progression.
*******************
Having been an NCO myself I got shafted on my E5 NCOER. It wasn't until I was down range being rated by an E8 was that pointed out to me when he reviewed my prior NCOER for the upcoming one. I was never flagged, been awarded an AAM and volunteered for a deployment and relative to my peers I was given a meets standard NCOER. As a USAR NCO at the time I was WAY above board relative to my peers. But the NCOER I was given was just written to check the box, and move on with the day.
However, as an LT with that knowledge in my pocket I gamed my OERs right out of the gate. I knew what should be in my bullets, I knew in my progression that my future duty positions should connect back to the growth assignments my Sr Rater recommends.
Evaluations should lay out a chronological career to regimented professional development and success.
That starts checking all sorts of boxes that a system generated promotion process will execute with my best chances of promotion when huge batched of promotions happen in times of military build up where the lengthy board process cannot be implemented.
But without the SGM there looking over the Jr NCO evals that NCOER is going to go through the system written by an E6 who possibly is writing his first Eval for someone and being Sr Rated by a CPT who is also doing it for the first time. Their objective is to simply get it approved by HRC.
I see your problem SGM. You have an E5 being rated by say an E6 with the CPT as the Sr, and you are cut out of the loop. When in reality, say the CPT in this example is new to the rank and hasn't done many Evals and the NCOER gets kicked ack by HRC many times.
So, as mentioned, a white paper would help influence the decision. I would attack it from a pure administrative solution where by a long term career Sr NCO like yourself could
1) Help the administrative flow and the first pass approval rates sent to HRC without need for correction.
2) Speak as an advocate for the NCO eval process who can help compose an NCOER in the best interest of the Army and the rated NCO's career progression.
*******************
Having been an NCO myself I got shafted on my E5 NCOER. It wasn't until I was down range being rated by an E8 was that pointed out to me when he reviewed my prior NCOER for the upcoming one. I was never flagged, been awarded an AAM and volunteered for a deployment and relative to my peers I was given a meets standard NCOER. As a USAR NCO at the time I was WAY above board relative to my peers. But the NCOER I was given was just written to check the box, and move on with the day.
However, as an LT with that knowledge in my pocket I gamed my OERs right out of the gate. I knew what should be in my bullets, I knew in my progression that my future duty positions should connect back to the growth assignments my Sr Rater recommends.
Evaluations should lay out a chronological career to regimented professional development and success.
That starts checking all sorts of boxes that a system generated promotion process will execute with my best chances of promotion when huge batched of promotions happen in times of military build up where the lengthy board process cannot be implemented.
But without the SGM there looking over the Jr NCO evals that NCOER is going to go through the system written by an E6 who possibly is writing his first Eval for someone and being Sr Rated by a CPT who is also doing it for the first time. Their objective is to simply get it approved by HRC.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Additionally, the problem with writing such a white paper, where is the data going to come from.
It would be very powerful to have data the tracks the rate of HRC kick backs relative to the Sr Rater date of rank, and inversely the rate of approvals for said Sr Rater DOR's.
Even better, if the data is captured for the total number of Evals both the rater and Sr rater have pushed through over their careers and potentially track a progression of fewer kick backs as they matured as raters.
Therefor one could argue it's nice to have a SGM in the eval loop to prevent HRC being overwhelmed by evals sent up by new CPTs that end up getting kicked back.
So I'm speculating it's the E5's and E6's and LT evals that are getting kicked back more so than the higher ranks because they are evaluated by a bunch of newbies.
But one needs the data.
It would be very powerful to have data the tracks the rate of HRC kick backs relative to the Sr Rater date of rank, and inversely the rate of approvals for said Sr Rater DOR's.
Even better, if the data is captured for the total number of Evals both the rater and Sr rater have pushed through over their careers and potentially track a progression of fewer kick backs as they matured as raters.
Therefor one could argue it's nice to have a SGM in the eval loop to prevent HRC being overwhelmed by evals sent up by new CPTs that end up getting kicked back.
So I'm speculating it's the E5's and E6's and LT evals that are getting kicked back more so than the higher ranks because they are evaluated by a bunch of newbies.
But one needs the data.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That data I speak of might be more accessible in the form of a statistically significant sample size if a bunch of S1 and G1 shops compiled their own Eval history. They have access to all the numbers I mentioned above, but only at their level of personnel coverage. But you get 3 or 4 brigades worth of data then you have a reasonable sample to support a hypothesis.
(1)
(0)
I'm down, SGM. Probably going to need a serious White Paper to convince HQDA on that one.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
You can do what I do and make every Senior rater add me as a delegate (with full rights) for all NCOERs. Regardless if I look at it or not, I will have the ability to do so and make any changes I deem necessary. But that is what I do in my unit.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google