This is a question to some of the senior NCOs who frequent these boards. I am a Platoon Sergeant and one of my NCOs, who is a SSG, bairly meets the standards on everyday taskings. My question is this; when I write his NCOER, should I reccomend that the rater give him a 3 in performance and a 2 in potential? I know that this, in my experience, is very taboo. The rater is a 2LT who will pretty much go with my recommendation on this. Here is some background on this SSG. I task this soldier, along with the other four Section Chiefs within my platoon, with taskings that come down. These taskings are everyday details, nothing too hard to handle. This NCO will, cannot, make any decisions on any tasking that he gets without running everything by me. Not because this is what I ask of him, but because he just does not seem to have the confidence in himself to get the job done. I have verbally counseled him on this numerous times as well as on his quarterly counselings. He is a newly promoted SSG with 16 years TIS. I have tried and tried to give this SSG a chance to excel by giving him the chance to shine, but it seems that whenever the tough taskings come down, he always seems to get out of them one way or another. Here his NCOER is due, and I can only justify one excellence block on his NCOER. This soldier was supposed to train his section for Section Evaluations, but due to his wife having an outpatient operation, was unable to participate. I am an Artilleryman and this evaluation is our "bread and butter." Has anyone else had one of these NCOs, who in my opinion, should probably not be in a leadership role. Due to his time in service, the senior leadership does not want to move him out of position. Any help would be appreciated.

I would have to say that a "2" or a "3" block is still successful. According to the most recent AAR comments from SR NCO boards. "1" blocks should only be reserved for the best of the NCOs. It gives the board memebers a clear picture of the individual. As I stated a "2" or a "3" block is still successful. If this NCO has 16 years TIS it is sad to say that the NCO does not have a bright future of making SFC. He will be at 19 years TIS when the board will look at this NCO. However, this is not for anyone to say it could still happen. If he has done a average job then the evaluation should reflect an average job done. I would say a "2" in performance and "2" in potential. This NCO has been in awhile. The learning and trial pahse should be over by now. As long as you have your quarterly counselings in order then you have complete justification. The appeal process IAW AR 623-3 will not be problem.

13B - I think that where you are headed with this is right. BLUF - make sure the system works as intended.

First - forget the "Taboo" crap. As long as you have the supporting documentation and it is clear and firm, your 1SG and CSM should support you. Based on what you write here, he clearly does not deserve a 1. Understand that by Regulation, a 3 is still success. So he will not be able to appeal the NCOER because 3s are not considered negative. Didn't you ever ask yourself - How did this guy make it?? Well, falling back on the 'taboo' crap is part of the answer to that question. People are afraid to do the right thing or have to deal with the stress that comes with justifying these evals.

Second - I am not sure I would even give him a 2 for potential if he is a SSG w/16 years and has serious confidence problems. Remember that your rating ensures he remains where he should.

Third - it is your rating and the senior rater's. If the reviewer disagrees, he can submit a memo IAW the regs and explain his non-concurrence. Don't change your intended rating to make someone else's life more comfortable.

Last - In the future, if you run into someone like this, raise the flags right away. Let your 1SG and CSM know that you have one of 'these' NCOs. You then have to make sure you document things (like I said, clear and firm). You do your part and the system maintains its integrity.