Posted on Jan 28, 2015
The Army is removing the automatic masking of OERs. Do you think this is a wise move?
52.9K
200
76
5
5
0
Army Directive 2015-07, Unmasking of Army Officer Evaluation Reports, dtd. 27 JAN 2015, has just been published. It will cause a large shift in how OERs are seen by future boards for all Army Officers.
Traditionally, Army boards do not see evaluations from an Officer's time as a Lieutenant or from a Warrant Officer's time as a WO1. This was done on the assumption that new Officers make some "growing pains" mistakes that should not be viewed punitively going forward. At the same time, however, the old policy masked OERs even if they were exceptional with ACOM ratings.
What's your opinion? Does masking serve a useful purpose, or was it simply part of a growing Army's procedures that should be eliminated during a draw-down? Do you think there will be a large number of Field-Grade Officers not promoted because of "one stupid thing", like what was claimed about Officers separated in the recent OSB/eSERB?
Old Language:
AR 623-3, 1–12(b) - "Selection board members and career managers will not have access to officers’ masked LT OERs in the AMHRR once they are promoted to CPT, or warrant officers’ masked WO1 OERs once promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3)."
New Language:
"All OERs will be placed in the performance section of the official Army Military Human Resources Records file."
Traditionally, Army boards do not see evaluations from an Officer's time as a Lieutenant or from a Warrant Officer's time as a WO1. This was done on the assumption that new Officers make some "growing pains" mistakes that should not be viewed punitively going forward. At the same time, however, the old policy masked OERs even if they were exceptional with ACOM ratings.
What's your opinion? Does masking serve a useful purpose, or was it simply part of a growing Army's procedures that should be eliminated during a draw-down? Do you think there will be a large number of Field-Grade Officers not promoted because of "one stupid thing", like what was claimed about Officers separated in the recent OSB/eSERB?
Old Language:
AR 623-3, 1–12(b) - "Selection board members and career managers will not have access to officers’ masked LT OERs in the AMHRR once they are promoted to CPT, or warrant officers’ masked WO1 OERs once promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3)."
New Language:
"All OERs will be placed in the performance section of the official Army Military Human Resources Records file."
Promotion Board
Officers
Evaluations
OER
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 32
10
10
0
- Wise vs necessary. Two different issues.
- Para 2 of the Army Directive states: The Army's policy of masking OERs was created with the advent of the DA 67-9 OER and implementation of the senior rater managed profile technique. As we move from fully qualified to best qualified selection boards, Army officers must clearly demonstrate intellectual, moral, and physical characteristics that indicate the potential for enduring
service in the profession of arms. Elimination of the masking process supports transparency and improves the accuracy of an officer's file, over the course of the entire career, in making personnel management decisions for the individual officer and the Army as a whole.
- Legal, moral, or ethical "mistakes" by LT/W01s should be known and considered by a promotion board. These kinds of issues directly lead to lack of trust which is the bedrock of the Army Profession. If a younger officer is inclined to do this when they are younger then they are more likely to do similar thing while they are older (personal opinion only).
- Tactical or growing mistakes should not be known by a board since this is how people learn best. The new Army Directive means that a rater and senior rater need to be more deliberate in their decision as to whether or not to include these types of mistakes in an OER.
- Para 2 of the Army Directive states: The Army's policy of masking OERs was created with the advent of the DA 67-9 OER and implementation of the senior rater managed profile technique. As we move from fully qualified to best qualified selection boards, Army officers must clearly demonstrate intellectual, moral, and physical characteristics that indicate the potential for enduring
service in the profession of arms. Elimination of the masking process supports transparency and improves the accuracy of an officer's file, over the course of the entire career, in making personnel management decisions for the individual officer and the Army as a whole.
- Legal, moral, or ethical "mistakes" by LT/W01s should be known and considered by a promotion board. These kinds of issues directly lead to lack of trust which is the bedrock of the Army Profession. If a younger officer is inclined to do this when they are younger then they are more likely to do similar thing while they are older (personal opinion only).
- Tactical or growing mistakes should not be known by a board since this is how people learn best. The new Army Directive means that a rater and senior rater need to be more deliberate in their decision as to whether or not to include these types of mistakes in an OER.
(10)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I think you hit it head on with the Legal, moral, and ethical mistake bit. Truthfully I don't see a lot of weight being placed on (long past) performance as a 2LT or W01, when current performance as a Senior 1LT/CPT, or CW2/3 is far more relevant.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, while I agree with your statement that "Elimination of the masking process supports transparency and improves the accuracy...," I feel hesitation with respect to the manner of execution. (CPT Krogh touches on a portion of this feeling below as well.)
Specifically, there is a difference between implementing the change now for all future evaluations and implementing the change retroactively as the Army has chosen in this case. Even though much less importance should be placed on the oldest evaluations, I think there are evaluations that previous raters/senior raters would have spent more time (thought, energy, reflection) on if they knew the reports would now remain unmasked for the entirety of the then-LT's career.
For right or wrong, it just feels like this is a break in trust from the employer to the employee. Even though the impact of an Officer's 2LT/1LT OER(s) being moved from the restricted to performance section will likely have minimal impact to their career, the break in trust will potentially have longer impact.
WO1 Bergevine's comment below about the tattoo policy is a common complaint [among many Soldiers] that highlights this feeling of distrust within the force. (I.e., the common attitude that it doesn't matter what the Army says in writing now... they will just change it later anyway.)
To quote Forbes Magazine, "trust is a fragile commodity in management, yet an exceedingly valuable one;" I only wish I could better impart my own trust in "the Army" [which I think is at a higher level than many] on my Soldiers, but imparting that trust becomes much more difficult when retroactive decisions like this are made.
Specifically, there is a difference between implementing the change now for all future evaluations and implementing the change retroactively as the Army has chosen in this case. Even though much less importance should be placed on the oldest evaluations, I think there are evaluations that previous raters/senior raters would have spent more time (thought, energy, reflection) on if they knew the reports would now remain unmasked for the entirety of the then-LT's career.
For right or wrong, it just feels like this is a break in trust from the employer to the employee. Even though the impact of an Officer's 2LT/1LT OER(s) being moved from the restricted to performance section will likely have minimal impact to their career, the break in trust will potentially have longer impact.
WO1 Bergevine's comment below about the tattoo policy is a common complaint [among many Soldiers] that highlights this feeling of distrust within the force. (I.e., the common attitude that it doesn't matter what the Army says in writing now... they will just change it later anyway.)
To quote Forbes Magazine, "trust is a fragile commodity in management, yet an exceedingly valuable one;" I only wish I could better impart my own trust in "the Army" [which I think is at a higher level than many] on my Soldiers, but imparting that trust becomes much more difficult when retroactive decisions like this are made.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, while I agree with the principles espoused in the new policy, the timing of this decision does not feel genuine. I'm not saying any junior officer should get a free pass or feel like they do; certainly any legal, moral, or ethical failures should be documented through a letter or memorandum at the appropriate level placed in their file. My opinion is that junior officers should know from day one if their OERs will be visible or masked, just as other policy changes are generally grandfathered.
Grandfathering aside, I do not see much merit in masking LT/W01 OERs. NCO's don't get any such 'growing period' to make honest mistakes and have it masked in future boards. Plenty of E-4s/E-5s make early mistakes and learn from them completely, and those evaluations do not disappear.
Grandfathering aside, I do not see much merit in masking LT/W01 OERs. NCO's don't get any such 'growing period' to make honest mistakes and have it masked in future boards. Plenty of E-4s/E-5s make early mistakes and learn from them completely, and those evaluations do not disappear.
(4)
(0)
7
7
0
"Tattoo memos will be placed in your RESTRICTED file and won't ever be viewable by a board"
Sound familiar?
Sound familiar?
(7)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't like it inasmuch as it shows how duplicitous the Army can be. She's a fickle mistress. I wonder how many Senior Raters were more honest and critical in their comments to subordinate officers when the OERs were masked than they would have been had they known that those OERs would be unmasked. If this happened, then I would say it's an injustice to those LTs.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google