The Army is removing the automatic masking of OERs. Do you think this is a wise move?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:11:15 -0500

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."

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2015 11:12 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:12:40 -0500

For those interested, here's the full directive.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Jan 28 at 2015 11:23 AM

CPT Richard Riley — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:23:01 -0500

I tend to agree that young officers may mistep in route to learning the ropes and provided that is not consistent, why should it bite them in the 6 later.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jan 28 at 2015 11:41 AM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:41:03 -0500

- 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.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 28 at 2015 10:02 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:33 -0500

AF Officer's OPR's to my knowledge have never been masked. Not sure why the Army ever masked them in the first placed.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 10:36 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:36:20 -0500

Sigh, does this mean since I am at the DA Select Board already (since Dec02) that my board is going to take longer to send out results? I was sure hoping for March.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 10:47 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:47:03 -0500

"Tattoo memos will be placed in your RESTRICTED file and won't ever be viewable by a board"

Sound familiar?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 11:17 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:17:33 -0500

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.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 1:24 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:24:46 -0500

I never knew that. I don't see that being any issue with that. The point is that they should see improvement. Some make mistakes but if everyone makes them they should be expected. Some who excel at the lower level should have their work follow them. I agree with it. I have worked very hard as a LT. I have no issue with my OER following me.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 30 at 2015 1:56 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:56:40 -0500

I wouldn't mind unmasking as long as board members understood across the board that in general LT/WO1 OERs don't really mean anything beyond giving you a starting point to start measuirng growth. Now this doesn't apply to "for cause" OERs, as those are always because someone did something egregious enough that they need to be out of the Army.

Response by SSG John Erny made Jan 30 at 2015 2:10 PM

SSG John Erny — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:10:41 -0500

http://www.craven.k12.nc.us/NBH/HURT_FEELINGS_REPORT.pdf

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 3:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:08:50 -0500

So now the new officer that takes some risk and makes a few mistakes is going to be at a disadvantage against the one who takes no risk and makes no mistakes. I don't believe that is a good move.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 3:58 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:58:15 -0500

There is definitely a case to be made on either side of this, but overall I have to say I like the change. It gives credit where credit is due for those officers who have outstanding OERs, and I do not believe it will prove an undue hardship even for those who had "growing pains" as a young officer/warrant. I think the board will understand that experience comes with time, and will not count a minor black mark early on in the career as significantly as they would the same mark later in the career.

Of course, if someone is really determined to give themselves unrecorded time to view, there's always the time-honored method of being prior enlisted, which provides a few years of eval-free learning time...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 5:05 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:05:53 -0500

They can unmask mine... I have nothing to hide...

Response by MAJ Matthew Arthurs made Jan 30 at 2015 6:05 PM

MAJ Matthew Arthurs — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:05:08 -0500

I don't think there will be an overall negative effect, for most boards it would amount to another 5 pounds of crap added to the 15 already in the 10 pound bag.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jan 30 at 2015 6:31 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:31:13 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, I served a tour as a detailed Inspector General. The DA Office of the Inspector General required that every OER from date of commission to current of every nominee be submitted for review. This practice has been going on forever at DAIG, so why not for promotion boards? TIG wants only the best (not that I was by any stretch!), and the Army as a whole should act accordingly.
As COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM points out, selection boards will be moving from fully qualified to best qualified, and any and all information available to differentiate officers will be necessary to retain/promote the best officers.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 6:43 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:43:46 -0500

Tough call. There is a reason E1-E4 don't get evaluated, so I can see where masking O1-O2 OERs could be a good thing. BUT, if an lieutenant pulls a really boneheaded act (DUI), maybe it shouldn't be a masked record.

My records were all good, so I can fully support this move, but this is on the path to the "Zero Defect" Army we had back in the 90s. These are dangerous times for Army careers, unfortunately.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jan 30 at 2015 8:09 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:09:35 -0500

As far as I know, the AF has not blacked out anything.... they were able to look at EVERY record of mine back to my commissioning. Don't think they looked at my enlisted records, but everything I had done as an officer was free game!

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jan 30 at 2015 10:39 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 22:39:32 -0500

I am of two minds here.

On the one hand, I never liked the whole masking thing. I thought it was a bad idea. Many here have already captured the various ways it is bad. I don't think OERs should be masked. They are what they are and should be part of the permanent record, even if you were young and stupid.

On the other hand, raters and senior raters may well have rated differently, knowing that they would be masked. AND Officers were TOLD that they would be masked. This strikes me as breaking faith with those Officers, and being directly contrary to several of the Army values. The Army should keep its word. We all know that it doesn't always, but every time it doesn't - even for the best of reasons, it degrades trust. After all, once I know you will lie about ONE thing, now I have to wonder if you will lie about this particular thing.

On the other other hand, all of my LT evals were top block (I had one or two problematic ones, but they were never masked). So to the extent that it makes a difference, I personally am OK with it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 10:56 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 22:56:05 -0500

There is no such thing as a masked performance review in the private sector: a new employee's holistic performance evaluation begins on his first day of work. Why should the Army be different? If the system must hide performance at any level to ensure potential advancement, there is a problem with the system. Mistakes are expected at the dawn of one's career regardless of occupation. Some you can recover from, others you can't.

The reviewers must also exercise good judgment. As an employee's level of experience grows, it makes good sense to lend greater weight to more recent evaluations and less to older ones, not just accounting for performance, but also for the level of responsibility. If I'm evaluating an employee who began work as a cashier, then became a shift supervisor, and finally an assistant store manager, I would put the least consideration into his first job, however well it was performed.

However the system is executed, it must be balanced on both sides.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 11:06 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:06:14 -0500

Let me rise and fall on my record, but don't cut me from the big leagues for my High School batting average.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 11:07 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:07:07 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member I think it is a good idea if we are trying to weed out everyone and cut down the number of officers. However, those who should be booted should have more than just a referred evaluation but a General Letter of Reprimand or something similar to go with it. We promote too many officers to CPT just because they meet the time requirement, have a degree, went to BOLC/OBC, and are not flagged at the time regardless if they were good or bad. It was a big push to fill CPT slots to ultimately fill MAJ slots. Now we are downsizing most areas and need to start trimming the force. However, in the Army Reserves we are still trying to fill our shortages and are praying that someone will come off AC time and come in. So it may help with this, but in the same matter they are cutting down our AGRs, so how are we to keep people into the Army Reserves if we keep pushing out those close to 18 years?

My idea is do not promote if we do not have slots for them. If we have 10 slots promote 10 people. Also, only promote if they are ready or deserve it. If we have 10 slots but only 8 deserve it and meet requirements only promote 8.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2015 12:14 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2015 00:14:37 -0500

I think that the level of the mistakes will affect the viewers perception. The farther away in the past the issue was it will have less of an impact on the board. The problem is that major issues can be hidden with the current system as well as great positives. So guys who kicked butt are not getting a leg up on guys who slipped up.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2015 1:15 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2015 01:15:10 -0500

Members of field grade promotion boards don't have a lot of time to review numerous Evals anyway, so they more than likely won't have the time to review the older ones which will now be unmasked.

Response by MAJ Raúl Rovira made Jan 31 at 2015 1:15 AM

MAJ Raúl Rovira — Sat, 31 Jan 2015 01:15:31 -0500

All OERs were unmasked years ago. Bring it on, lets just get done with it.

From what I've learned and experienced, the OER can be viewed as your performance if accurately and unbiasedly written.

Or it can simply be the opinion of the rater, Sr rater or both when they personally dont like you. This is where some careers are put to an end. Sadly it happens. This type of OERs would have been seen by the OSBs but not by the selection boards. Now it all changes. No more Free Chicken.

In the end, what all Sr Raters say lays the pastern of how one performs. And hopefully there are a few ACOMs on the file.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2015 10:46 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:46:07 -0500

This seems a 6 in one hand 1/2 dozen in the other. My understanding at the time (back in '06-'11, I do not remember this very clearly since it didn't really matter) was that senior raters were not given the option to check ACOM, COM, BCOM or that it was not held against their profile, so most people ended up with ACOMs. Was anyone a SR during this time and can comment?

I remember that when I was a lieutenant, it was pitched to us that they were masked because it was a time for 'learning.' This was very cynical because everyone knew the real reason was they needed junior officers so badly, they couldn't afford to fire any but the very worst. I believe that they should be seen because it is better that if a junior officer is not working out, he/she has an opportunity to depart for a more suitable career.

These decisions are always driven by force structure needs and are always justified with one side of this argument (depending on how many JOs are needed). I don't mean to sound cynical, but I personally have no issues with force size being the driving reason.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2015 3:13 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:13:59 -0500

Why should "any" officer be "allowed" to make "mistakes" and not have to face up to them? The term "mistakes" is far to relative. Leadership development theories believe that making 'mistakes' is human and acceptable (within reason). Making "mistakes" and not being held fully responsible for them might give officers a false sense of security that they are not responsible for their actions! All officers (NCO, warrant, or commissioned) should be transparently and fairing evaluated from day one - they are leaders from day one and need to lead by example without exception.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2015 7:20 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 07:20:11 -0500

I don’t see the value in this action. At that time in an Officer’s career it is so long ago that I would guess that their character and overall personality has changed significantly. So what is the value of looking at those OERs.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2015 10:22 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:22:29 -0500

Everyone makes mistakes. However, those mistakes must be some serious lapses in leadership and judgment to make it to an OER and/or the rater really does not understand counseling and corrective training. With the Army looking at retaining the best, raters and senior raters are the honest brokers of the standard. If an officer is having difficulties, the rater and senior rater are just as responsible for those failures. Document everything! Counseling, training, and supervision should be used to re-evaluate the officer.

Officers and senior NCOs are held to a higher standard because we are entrusted for the well-being (lives) of our subordinates. Offenses committed by enlisted and junior NCOs are not as severely punished as those committed by someone (officers) in a leadership position.

If a board member has enough time to go all the way back to the 2LT/1LT or WO1 OERs for any kind of selection, they are probably not performing within the board guidance or its a very small number of files and only the best should be selected. Of all the officers I have talked to about promotion boards, they only have a few minutes between the DA Photo, ORB, and OERS to rate a packet.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2015 10:27 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 22:27:02 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member agreed to a point. NCOs had a chance to mess up without being evaluated when they were E-1 to E-4. Officers do not have that time period now. They used to have O-1 to O-2 (provided nobody got killed and their had their education they got promoted to O-3). Should they meet half-way and only mask the O-1 OERs? I know I am proud of my evaluations and my first command was as a O-2 so I am happy it is unmasked. Others may not be as happy.

Response by COL William Hoppe made Feb 6 at 2015 1:18 PM

COL William Hoppe — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:18:46 -0500

I never bought the masking to begin with; none of my company grade OERs were masked. That takes me to the "Traditionally, Army boards do not see..." not true; we didn't start masking company grade OERs until sometime in the early-2000s. The Senior Rater block has always been about potential so I never understood it. It did save a bunch of senior raters the hassle of having to manage their profiles.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2015 6:30 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 06:30:22 -0400

It's a terrible idea because it breaks faith with the officers who were promised they were no longer in a zero-defect environment. However, I have no problem with keeping all future OERs open for all future boards.

The real problem is the up-or-out promotion system, which is toxic to the team-environment that is essential for any military.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 19 at 2015 4:45 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:45:40 -0400

They are changing the criteria to justify getting rid of officers.