Posted on Jan 13, 2016
Do you think it is appropriate for Raters/Sr. Raters to withhold an "top block" eval because the rated Soldier is leaving active duty?
27.3K
46
26
6
6
0
I recently overheard a conversation between active component officers who were saying they are not going to "waste" a "top block" evaluation on an officer who is leaving active duty. A courageous former USAR officer asked, "What is they are going to the Army Reserve"? The response was, "I have to look out for us."; meaning Active Component.
My opinion is give the Soldier the evaluation they earned. Keep the component rivalry out of it. Please share your opinion.
My opinion is give the Soldier the evaluation they earned. Keep the component rivalry out of it. Please share your opinion.
Evaluations
OER
NCOER
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 16
7
7
0
TL/DR: Raters rate on Performance. Senior Raters rate on Potential. Potential is a judgement call and a lot of factors can go into it.
So, I get where you are coming from, and have witnessed a very similar scenario - AC/RC unit where the AC raters habitually give "top blocks" to the AC subordinates and COM to the RC subordinates. Uncool. (For the record, this was not an issue I experienced firsthand, but I witnessed it on a fairly regular basis).
However, in fairness, I think it's a little more complicated than that and we need to look at what the system was designed to do and what each person in the puzzle is supposed to do.
The system is designed to assess current PERFORMANCE and future POTENTIAL.
The Rated Officer's role (similar for enlisted, but the Q used an O example. And historically, there has not been a "cap" on top blocks on the E side. As the new NCOER, with it's Rater and Senior Rater profiles rolls out, they will get to experience this as well. ) is to ensure that he/she understands what the boss needs and to perform to the best of their ability.
The Rater's role is to assess current PERFORMANCE.
The Senior Rater's role is the assess POTENTIAL for future service at higher levels.
Hopefully, none of the above is in any way controversial.
During the final rating period, the Rated Officer should perform to the best of their ability. If they decide to be ROAD, they should expect to be evaluated as same....
During ANY rating period, the Rater should assess based on current performance. The fact that the Rated Officer is leaving active duty, the current assignment, going to the reserves, retiring, or coming up for a board. (Yes, I bet that last just annoyed a lot of people, but assessing performance based on whether that person is going to a board or not is manifestly unfair to those who are working hard without being before a board.)
Again, the above, with the exception of my comment on boards, should not be controversial.
Here is where the rub comes.... When evaluating potential for future service, especially at higher ranks, a lot of non-performance issues come into play. This is by design. This is where talent management is supposed to come into the system as we select and groom the next generations of leadership. (For the moment, we will ignore the fact that we really only do talent management at the GEN/COL and MAYBE LTC level) A lot of things come into play. How diplomatic is the person, how well do they understand the Army as an institution and its role in the government, do they have an appropriate academic background, etc. etc. etc.
One key factor in potential for future service HAS to be the decisions that the Rated Officer is known to have made regarding ACTUAL future service. If an Officer has dropped their retirement packet and has an approved retirement date.... They have almost ZERO potential for future service, especially at a higher grade. If an Officer has been twice passed over for promotion.... They have almost ZERO potential for future service, especially at a higher grade (and, for the record, for the first time in practically forever I know of an Officer who is actually being separated for being a 2 time non-select. Not QMP, QSB, just non-select). QMP or QSB selectee, I would have to judge their potential as pretty low. They CAN, under current policy, end up going from AC to RC in that case (which is a great message about the regard in which the RC is held.....). However, I don't foresee a stellar career in the RC following QMP/QSB. If they don't have the appropriate educational background, that is going to be seen as a limiting factor. If they don't have the "right" blend of previous duty assignments, that is going to be a limiting factor. Those last several don't say "no" potential, but I think it would be fair to really look at it. Potential for advancement in that Officer's branch/FA is also a valid concern.
I said everything above, so that I could say this about your scenario: The Soldier EARNS the PERFORMANCE section of the evaluation. The potential section is forward-looking and not "earned". If the reported comment was made at the Rater level, it was professional malpractice. If the reported comment was made at the Senior Rater level, it's more complicated.
The Rater should rate them on their performance. Period. The Senior Rater should rate them based on the Senior Rater's ASSESSMENT of that Officer's ACTUAL POTENTIAL for continued service, especially at higher grades. This assessment should be based off of the Senior Rater's knowledge of the Officer and any plans that they know the Officer has.
We don't have all the facts in your scenario, so it is a little hard to know how much to read into it. If this is an LTC being discussed, and IF they are going into the RC (someone suggested that in your scenario, but I don't know if that was the rated officer's plan. I would hope that the Rater and Senior Rater knew.), well I know that that have chosen to have zero actual potential for future service in the AC, let alone at a higher grade. I also know that they have significantly lowered their chances of COL or COL-level command. Depending on location and willingness to travel, they may have foreclosed the opportunity for ANY meaningful COL-level assignments.
In this scenario, there is a very legitimate question of WHAT this Officer's future potential to serve, especially at higher grades. That question is going to be answered by the intersection of 1) the facts in this case and 2) the Senior Rater's assessment of the Officer, the facts, and the overall environment. I could certainly come up with non-obviously-stupid sets of facts and assessments that would lead me to give this Officer an ACOM or a COM or even a BCOM (yes, I know, new terms now....). But, as always, the question is what conclusions does the Senior Rater reach, and are those conclusions congruent with conclusions they have reached in the past? Because, ultimately, it is a judgement call.
Were I that Senior Rater, assuming the fact was that the Officer was transitioning to the RC, I would not automatically say "no ACOM". I would, however, look at that as a factor in reaching my assessment of that Officer's overall potential. As a rater, I have given several Officers ACOMs and recommended COM to the Senior Rater.
And, in case anyone is still reading and is not yet pissed off, I would NOT give any Officer (or NCO) an ACOM in performance or potential "because they are going in front of the board." That is a perversion of the evaluation system. We cannot simultaneously say we should only promote the best, enable promoting people regardless of actual performance and potential, and then complain about the deadweight that gets promoted when "better" people are passed over or involuntarily separated, and then also complain about the decline in the quality of senior leadership.
So, I get where you are coming from, and have witnessed a very similar scenario - AC/RC unit where the AC raters habitually give "top blocks" to the AC subordinates and COM to the RC subordinates. Uncool. (For the record, this was not an issue I experienced firsthand, but I witnessed it on a fairly regular basis).
However, in fairness, I think it's a little more complicated than that and we need to look at what the system was designed to do and what each person in the puzzle is supposed to do.
The system is designed to assess current PERFORMANCE and future POTENTIAL.
The Rated Officer's role (similar for enlisted, but the Q used an O example. And historically, there has not been a "cap" on top blocks on the E side. As the new NCOER, with it's Rater and Senior Rater profiles rolls out, they will get to experience this as well. ) is to ensure that he/she understands what the boss needs and to perform to the best of their ability.
The Rater's role is to assess current PERFORMANCE.
The Senior Rater's role is the assess POTENTIAL for future service at higher levels.
Hopefully, none of the above is in any way controversial.
During the final rating period, the Rated Officer should perform to the best of their ability. If they decide to be ROAD, they should expect to be evaluated as same....
During ANY rating period, the Rater should assess based on current performance. The fact that the Rated Officer is leaving active duty, the current assignment, going to the reserves, retiring, or coming up for a board. (Yes, I bet that last just annoyed a lot of people, but assessing performance based on whether that person is going to a board or not is manifestly unfair to those who are working hard without being before a board.)
Again, the above, with the exception of my comment on boards, should not be controversial.
Here is where the rub comes.... When evaluating potential for future service, especially at higher ranks, a lot of non-performance issues come into play. This is by design. This is where talent management is supposed to come into the system as we select and groom the next generations of leadership. (For the moment, we will ignore the fact that we really only do talent management at the GEN/COL and MAYBE LTC level) A lot of things come into play. How diplomatic is the person, how well do they understand the Army as an institution and its role in the government, do they have an appropriate academic background, etc. etc. etc.
One key factor in potential for future service HAS to be the decisions that the Rated Officer is known to have made regarding ACTUAL future service. If an Officer has dropped their retirement packet and has an approved retirement date.... They have almost ZERO potential for future service, especially at a higher grade. If an Officer has been twice passed over for promotion.... They have almost ZERO potential for future service, especially at a higher grade (and, for the record, for the first time in practically forever I know of an Officer who is actually being separated for being a 2 time non-select. Not QMP, QSB, just non-select). QMP or QSB selectee, I would have to judge their potential as pretty low. They CAN, under current policy, end up going from AC to RC in that case (which is a great message about the regard in which the RC is held.....). However, I don't foresee a stellar career in the RC following QMP/QSB. If they don't have the appropriate educational background, that is going to be seen as a limiting factor. If they don't have the "right" blend of previous duty assignments, that is going to be a limiting factor. Those last several don't say "no" potential, but I think it would be fair to really look at it. Potential for advancement in that Officer's branch/FA is also a valid concern.
I said everything above, so that I could say this about your scenario: The Soldier EARNS the PERFORMANCE section of the evaluation. The potential section is forward-looking and not "earned". If the reported comment was made at the Rater level, it was professional malpractice. If the reported comment was made at the Senior Rater level, it's more complicated.
The Rater should rate them on their performance. Period. The Senior Rater should rate them based on the Senior Rater's ASSESSMENT of that Officer's ACTUAL POTENTIAL for continued service, especially at higher grades. This assessment should be based off of the Senior Rater's knowledge of the Officer and any plans that they know the Officer has.
We don't have all the facts in your scenario, so it is a little hard to know how much to read into it. If this is an LTC being discussed, and IF they are going into the RC (someone suggested that in your scenario, but I don't know if that was the rated officer's plan. I would hope that the Rater and Senior Rater knew.), well I know that that have chosen to have zero actual potential for future service in the AC, let alone at a higher grade. I also know that they have significantly lowered their chances of COL or COL-level command. Depending on location and willingness to travel, they may have foreclosed the opportunity for ANY meaningful COL-level assignments.
In this scenario, there is a very legitimate question of WHAT this Officer's future potential to serve, especially at higher grades. That question is going to be answered by the intersection of 1) the facts in this case and 2) the Senior Rater's assessment of the Officer, the facts, and the overall environment. I could certainly come up with non-obviously-stupid sets of facts and assessments that would lead me to give this Officer an ACOM or a COM or even a BCOM (yes, I know, new terms now....). But, as always, the question is what conclusions does the Senior Rater reach, and are those conclusions congruent with conclusions they have reached in the past? Because, ultimately, it is a judgement call.
Were I that Senior Rater, assuming the fact was that the Officer was transitioning to the RC, I would not automatically say "no ACOM". I would, however, look at that as a factor in reaching my assessment of that Officer's overall potential. As a rater, I have given several Officers ACOMs and recommended COM to the Senior Rater.
And, in case anyone is still reading and is not yet pissed off, I would NOT give any Officer (or NCO) an ACOM in performance or potential "because they are going in front of the board." That is a perversion of the evaluation system. We cannot simultaneously say we should only promote the best, enable promoting people regardless of actual performance and potential, and then complain about the deadweight that gets promoted when "better" people are passed over or involuntarily separated, and then also complain about the decline in the quality of senior leadership.
(7)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
COL Vincent Stoneking Great response. In my opinion, that's exactly it. If the Senior Rater is not giving them an ACOM (again, must be based on future potential) my assumption is that it is because the Solder is leaving Active Duty, and therefore their potential for promotion and success at higher ranks is pretty much negated.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Vincent Stoneking I've only received 15 years' worth of OERs and watched my peers receive OERs in the same period, but my experience has been that timing is as or more important than actual performance or assessed future potential. I’ve experienced this personally, both (for me) positively and negatively. For example, I’ve been told flat-out by my rater and senior rater that I’d receive a COM report because others in the senior rater’s profile were up for a board; then again, the same has probably resulted in ACOM reports for me. I’d bet, across the Army (for captains through colonel, at least) that the distribution of ACOMs tracks closely with the timing of promotion boards. With officers generally serving as captains for about 6 years and majors for about 6 years, and with a forced distribution, those COM reports that are required for a SR to give ACOMs have to go to someone, and I’d bet (although we’d need to see the data) that most SRs give a extremely high proportion of COM reports to 1) the most junior folks in each rank / those with more time until their promotion board convenes and 2) folks getting their first OER from the SR. Sure, there are a few folks who manage to look like superstars on paper (and some, ok, probably more like just a few, of these folks that look like superstars on paper actually are the best officers) and they’ll always get ACOMs, but the vast majority of officers are in the 40% to 80% of OERs being ACOMs group.
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
TL/DR: I think you're right, which means we're doing it wrong.
MAJ (Join to see) - My expectation is that OER ratings have a distribution pretty close to exactly as you project, and for the exact "reasons" that you posit. I didn't quite follow your last sentence, but if I were to throw out a number, I would guess that between 75-80% of Os have an ACOM for their "board OERs". I think that this is accepted as "normal" across the force.
[Edit: I think I got your last sentence. You were referring to the "heartbeat" thing and the % of your OERs that "need" to be ACOMs to be promoted?... ]
I just happen to think that that is a symptom of a theoretically decent system that is rendered largely useless through intentional perversion of its intent, as I discussed above.
I think it also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of boards AND the role evaluations SHOULD play in them AS WELL AS making it harder for boards to do their jobs well, but that's a rant for a different day. (Shortest version: EACH rating is a a chance for the rating chain to "cast its vote" by sending a message to ALL future boards of their assessment of the Officer.)
MAJ (Join to see) - My expectation is that OER ratings have a distribution pretty close to exactly as you project, and for the exact "reasons" that you posit. I didn't quite follow your last sentence, but if I were to throw out a number, I would guess that between 75-80% of Os have an ACOM for their "board OERs". I think that this is accepted as "normal" across the force.
[Edit: I think I got your last sentence. You were referring to the "heartbeat" thing and the % of your OERs that "need" to be ACOMs to be promoted?... ]
I just happen to think that that is a symptom of a theoretically decent system that is rendered largely useless through intentional perversion of its intent, as I discussed above.
I think it also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of boards AND the role evaluations SHOULD play in them AS WELL AS making it harder for boards to do their jobs well, but that's a rant for a different day. (Shortest version: EACH rating is a a chance for the rating chain to "cast its vote" by sending a message to ALL future boards of their assessment of the Officer.)
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Vincent Stoneking Sir--roger, my last sentence referenced the "heartbeat" theory and the percent of OERs that are ACOMs that statistics strongly suggest are "needed" to be promoted.
I'd prefer to see a system in which each branch or functional area decides its own promotions. HRC (if we have to have one) can still determine the quota/number of officers that each branch/functional area can promote at each board, based on projected Army endstrengths and manning issues. Centralized Army boards would then be for promotion to O-7 (as we know that promotion to O-8, O-9, and O-10 isn't done through a board process). As promotion to 1LT is done at the battalion-level, the Army would then have one centralized board (for promotion to O-7), one battalion level promotion process (for promotion to 1LT), and four branch/functional area run decentralized promotion boards, along with O-8 and above GO promotion processes. The Army could publish requirements for how branches promote people, and maybe require officers up for promotion interview with the board. Branches could then focus on what is important for each branch, vs. what is currently important for promotion boards (ie, a box check).
Because in the current process officers only really compete against their peers in their branch and functional area (because of the quote issue), this sort of process shouldn't cause much angst (except from HRC, whose existence is partially justified by the promotion board process).
I'm a FAO. Here's how this could work for FAO Branch, using a theoretical LTC promotion board:
1) FAO picks 6-8 senior colonels and 1 (of the 4) "FAO general" to serve on the board. These officers would represent each of the various FAO geographic areas of concentration.
2) The board could pre-screen files (using essentially the existing process) to determine an order-of-merit. Maybe from this group, the board can determine those to absolutely not promote based on BCOMs, LORs, failure to maintain MOS proficiency, APFT failures, etc, etc; the board wouldn't need to interview those screened out. I'd estimate that this would probably reduce the interview load by, say, 10-15% (mostly because maintaining foreign language proficiency is a FAO MOS requirement, and a large number of FAOs are not MOS qualified, and not being MOS qualified should be a restriction to promotion.)
3) The board could then conduct interviews or additional screening for each officer. Yes, this would take time. But we're talking about the future leaders of the United States Army, so devoting more than 4 minutes or so to each officer should not be accepted. Also, for FAOs, there will only be about 170 officers looked at each year for promotion (minus the 20-30 screened out in previous processes), so you'd be looking at 140 FAOs a year. About half of these would be folks up for BZ promotion--so the board wouldn't need to interview those low and mid-range performers (say, folks with 0/5 or 1/5 or 2/5 or 3/5 ACOM OERs), only those with demonstrated high-level performance on the OERs, which will be about 20% of the BZ-eligible population. So, the number needing to be interviewed would be down to about 90 folks. From this 90, about 20 will be folks that were passed over the year before, from which only a few will be selected for promotion, so interviews wouldn't be needed for folks with bad files (again, 0/5 - 2/5 ACOM OERs). At the end of the screening, the board would need to interview probably around 80 people. Twenty-minute interview, 80 people = 26 hours, so about 4-5 work days. Throw in an extra week for the pre-screening, and the board would need to spend two weeks determining who to promote to LTC.
4) interviews could be used to adjust the order of merit list, and weed out those that look like superstars on paper but really aren't.
5) expand this to O-4 and O-6 promotions (officers become FAOs as captains, so no board required there), and FAO Branch would need around 6 weeks a year to conduct promotion processes. That seems fair---spend 12% of the year figuring out who to promote. Again, after all, we're talking about promoting leaders in the Army--this is important stuff.
6) Now, expand this out to other functional areas. FAO is a medium-sized functional area. Some functional areas would need slightly more or less time per year to deal with promotion processes.
7) Branch promotion processes would need to probably add a couple weeks to decide who to promote to captain, so 6 +2 = 8 weeks, or 15% of the year. Let's add an additional week to each rank promotion process, so 12 weeks, or 23% of the year.
I think branch/functional-area led processes will lead to better promotions. We already do this for some (medical, medical service, chaplain, JAG, etc) because those branches have special requirements. I'd suggest that all functional areas should move to this model, because they all have very special requirements (more so than, say, medical service, which has very few special requirements as compared to a functional area like FAO). I'd also suggest that the basic branches have special requirements---if not, let's do away with armor, infantry, artillery, engineer, etc, etc and make "multifunctional combat arms officers" like we've done with "multifunctional logisticians" above the O-1 and O-2 ranks.
Finally, if we really must keep the current system:
1) Publish regulations prohibiting the use of names and gender-specific personal pronouns on evaluations. Have the officer's name on the top line of the OER, but black it out. Use "this officer" instead of "Maj X" or "Maj First Name, Last Name" in the narrative portions of the OER.
2) Black out names and gender in all other documents the board sees. This will prevent gender bias. People will say this is too hard to do; the Army's propensity to redact everything during FOIA processes suggests the Army has a really good system for blacking things out.
3) Disallow the use of the DA photo by boards. This will prevent gender/race/age/other types of bias. I'm not sure how the current process doesn't violate U.S. non-discrimination laws. As the ORB already shows all deployments, awards, decorations, etc, the only reason the photo could be necessary is to assess "military bearing." Leave that to raters and senior raters, who surely would comment in narrative sections if an officer was a fat, lazy, unprofessional slob.
4) Require the inclusion of APFT scores. For scores, to keep it gender blind, only show the points earned (not the raw score) (or, better yet, change the APFT to an age and gender neutral test).
I'd prefer to see a system in which each branch or functional area decides its own promotions. HRC (if we have to have one) can still determine the quota/number of officers that each branch/functional area can promote at each board, based on projected Army endstrengths and manning issues. Centralized Army boards would then be for promotion to O-7 (as we know that promotion to O-8, O-9, and O-10 isn't done through a board process). As promotion to 1LT is done at the battalion-level, the Army would then have one centralized board (for promotion to O-7), one battalion level promotion process (for promotion to 1LT), and four branch/functional area run decentralized promotion boards, along with O-8 and above GO promotion processes. The Army could publish requirements for how branches promote people, and maybe require officers up for promotion interview with the board. Branches could then focus on what is important for each branch, vs. what is currently important for promotion boards (ie, a box check).
Because in the current process officers only really compete against their peers in their branch and functional area (because of the quote issue), this sort of process shouldn't cause much angst (except from HRC, whose existence is partially justified by the promotion board process).
I'm a FAO. Here's how this could work for FAO Branch, using a theoretical LTC promotion board:
1) FAO picks 6-8 senior colonels and 1 (of the 4) "FAO general" to serve on the board. These officers would represent each of the various FAO geographic areas of concentration.
2) The board could pre-screen files (using essentially the existing process) to determine an order-of-merit. Maybe from this group, the board can determine those to absolutely not promote based on BCOMs, LORs, failure to maintain MOS proficiency, APFT failures, etc, etc; the board wouldn't need to interview those screened out. I'd estimate that this would probably reduce the interview load by, say, 10-15% (mostly because maintaining foreign language proficiency is a FAO MOS requirement, and a large number of FAOs are not MOS qualified, and not being MOS qualified should be a restriction to promotion.)
3) The board could then conduct interviews or additional screening for each officer. Yes, this would take time. But we're talking about the future leaders of the United States Army, so devoting more than 4 minutes or so to each officer should not be accepted. Also, for FAOs, there will only be about 170 officers looked at each year for promotion (minus the 20-30 screened out in previous processes), so you'd be looking at 140 FAOs a year. About half of these would be folks up for BZ promotion--so the board wouldn't need to interview those low and mid-range performers (say, folks with 0/5 or 1/5 or 2/5 or 3/5 ACOM OERs), only those with demonstrated high-level performance on the OERs, which will be about 20% of the BZ-eligible population. So, the number needing to be interviewed would be down to about 90 folks. From this 90, about 20 will be folks that were passed over the year before, from which only a few will be selected for promotion, so interviews wouldn't be needed for folks with bad files (again, 0/5 - 2/5 ACOM OERs). At the end of the screening, the board would need to interview probably around 80 people. Twenty-minute interview, 80 people = 26 hours, so about 4-5 work days. Throw in an extra week for the pre-screening, and the board would need to spend two weeks determining who to promote to LTC.
4) interviews could be used to adjust the order of merit list, and weed out those that look like superstars on paper but really aren't.
5) expand this to O-4 and O-6 promotions (officers become FAOs as captains, so no board required there), and FAO Branch would need around 6 weeks a year to conduct promotion processes. That seems fair---spend 12% of the year figuring out who to promote. Again, after all, we're talking about promoting leaders in the Army--this is important stuff.
6) Now, expand this out to other functional areas. FAO is a medium-sized functional area. Some functional areas would need slightly more or less time per year to deal with promotion processes.
7) Branch promotion processes would need to probably add a couple weeks to decide who to promote to captain, so 6 +2 = 8 weeks, or 15% of the year. Let's add an additional week to each rank promotion process, so 12 weeks, or 23% of the year.
I think branch/functional-area led processes will lead to better promotions. We already do this for some (medical, medical service, chaplain, JAG, etc) because those branches have special requirements. I'd suggest that all functional areas should move to this model, because they all have very special requirements (more so than, say, medical service, which has very few special requirements as compared to a functional area like FAO). I'd also suggest that the basic branches have special requirements---if not, let's do away with armor, infantry, artillery, engineer, etc, etc and make "multifunctional combat arms officers" like we've done with "multifunctional logisticians" above the O-1 and O-2 ranks.
Finally, if we really must keep the current system:
1) Publish regulations prohibiting the use of names and gender-specific personal pronouns on evaluations. Have the officer's name on the top line of the OER, but black it out. Use "this officer" instead of "Maj X" or "Maj First Name, Last Name" in the narrative portions of the OER.
2) Black out names and gender in all other documents the board sees. This will prevent gender bias. People will say this is too hard to do; the Army's propensity to redact everything during FOIA processes suggests the Army has a really good system for blacking things out.
3) Disallow the use of the DA photo by boards. This will prevent gender/race/age/other types of bias. I'm not sure how the current process doesn't violate U.S. non-discrimination laws. As the ORB already shows all deployments, awards, decorations, etc, the only reason the photo could be necessary is to assess "military bearing." Leave that to raters and senior raters, who surely would comment in narrative sections if an officer was a fat, lazy, unprofessional slob.
4) Require the inclusion of APFT scores. For scores, to keep it gender blind, only show the points earned (not the raw score) (or, better yet, change the APFT to an age and gender neutral test).
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Is it right? Absolutely not. Does it happen? Absolutely. In my last two deployments as an USAR officer, I was rated by an active duty Division CG. So I was in the same block of officers that included all Battalion Commanders and Division primary staff officers. I knew I was going to get a COM regardless of how I performed because I was a Reserve officer. They were going to save those for the future Brigade Commanders. I accepted that and volunteered to deploy because it was my duty. What bothered me was my final OER as a LTC in my Reserve unit. The Group Commander said that since I had been passed over for COL 3 times, I was not going to be selected so even though I was deserving of a ACOM, she was going to save those for the officers who still had promotion potential. That was one of the most demotivating times in my military career.
(5)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
COL Jon Thompson Sir, That would definitely be a demotivator of the first order. That said, it can also be seen as a lesson in "not letting the bastards get you down", as I note you retired as a COL.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
I think the OER system should reflect how many AD officers of this grade versus RA officers of this grade. It would promote a greater degree of fairness, and not skew the senior raters plate.
(0)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
CW3 Kevin Storm - I am almost positive that is how it used to be and that makes sense. Perhaps it was too complex to have separate senior rater profiles. I cannot blame them for doing it. What I wonder is how a promotion board looks at these. I know I was passed over twice in a USAR unit where officers that never deployed and stayed in that same unit year after year were selected. That pissed me off more than getting a COM OER from a Division commander.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
COL Jon Thompson - Sir, it is the AD taking care of the AD, plain and simple. Doubt it will change in our lifetimes.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I concur, sir. The problem with the rationale of the officers you referenced is that they seem to think it's their job to give out as many top blocks as possible *to people they feel best need them* (whether that be RA folks or people going before a board) rather than rate folks based strictly on their performance. And that's why the Army had use a quota system for top blocks because of the excessive inflation caused precisely by that type of thinking.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google