When a soldier has documented medical conditions that prevent him from doing some of his duties and when his rater gave him all succeses and excelences can the senior rater 3 block the NCO? Where can I go to find some concrete information on this myself. We are kind of looking for the answer to his quick because this is going on right now.
Original Post
DA Form 2166-8, NCO Evaluation Report. Now when your saying
quote:
can the senior rater 3 block the NCO?

By that do you mean in Part V, section c and d he was given a "3"? If so, AR 623–205, Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System, on page 16, paragraph 3–13. Part V, Overall Performance and Potential, section c. (1) states:
quote:
(1) Successful/superior. A “1” rating represents the cream of the crop and is a recommendation for immediate
promotion. A “2” rating represents a very good, solid performance and is a strong recommendation for promotion. A
“3” rating also represents a good performance and, should sufficient allocations be available, is a recommendation for
promotion.


But if it's a discrepancy between what the rater and senior rater has of the NCO being rated then it's the responsibility of the Reviewer. One of the definition for a Reviewer is
quote:
Primary role
is that of rating safeguard/over-watch.
Then on page 17 it does state
quote:
3–14. Reviewer nonconcurrence actions
When the reviewer disagrees with the rater and/or senior rater and marks the “nonconcur” block in part IIe of the
NCO-ER, an explanation enclosure is required. The bullet comment rules governing the completion of the DA Form
2166-8 itself do not apply. The enclosure rules of paragraph 3-24 apply (see fig 3-8). The reviewer is required to notify
the rater, senior rater, and rated NCO of nonconcurrence before the report is forwarded.
The short answer is yes, the Senior Rater can "3 Block" the NCO. What "documentation supporting this rating" the other post referred to doesn't really apply her. Technically, it IS a recommendation for promotion. (As if any extra slots will be available)

I've only seen this on a few occasions. Generally, it results from a disagreement between the Rater and Sr Rater. The Sr Rater, in my experiences, believed that the NCO's performance was deserving of a 3; and, often that the Rater was giving ratings above that the Sr. Rater agreed with. Since the Sr. Rater can't direct the Rater to change the ratings, the recourse is to simply "3 Block."

Your rater isn't the only one you need to develop a relationship with.
quote:
Originally posted by PowerTango:
HQDA will likely kick back any NCOER with performance rating/promtion potential that don't match without substantial bullets to justify the difference. The reviewer is SUPPOSED to do this too, but most of the time they just check the box and move on.


The NCOER discussed here is NOT one likely to be kicked back by HRC. A 3 Block IS A RECOMMENDATION for promotion. Just not a strong one. It seems counter intuitive, but it meets the standard. This is nothing new. Again, I've seen it on several occasions.
if the rater has checked all success blocks but put in bullets like (lacks desire, can't be trusted to accomplish mission, fails to achieve minimum performance) how is that success ? would this kind of rating be kicked back along with a 3-3 with bullets (promote after peers, has don't care attitude, leadership ability questionable) but checks the fully capable box does any of this make scense and the reviewer didn't check either box and no counseling dates are on the front of the NCOER
wow now i am lost thought dreamstalker was talking about his SM and then SSG DW thows this in... a 3-3 like top said can and does go through, I just did a 3-3 on one of mine... cant shoot and cant pass a PT test... first draft was a 4-4 but after talking to CSM we agreed to a 3-3 and to a reduc board.

remember rank is not given it is earned and has to be earned each day.

just an old NCO talkin

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×