Despite the fact that regulation specifically states that senior raters etc cannot force a rater etc to change his/her bullets, always you have someone "kicking back" NCOERs.

Frankly, I think I am able to write NCOERs quite well. I never give unfair or unjustified bullets, and I am always factual.

Oftentimes, you get people who are not even in a rating chain (i.e. - A 1SG, CSM, etc) who want you to completely change someone's NCOER.

Granted, if you write something like "Scored 290 on latest APFT" when in fact they scored a 270, those people have a legitimate beef. Or anything else that is in the reg that you can't or aren't supposed to do (like cover stuff that was covered in another NCOER or DA1059) makes sense.

Just venting. This isn't the first unit that has done this. As a matter of fact, this is the first unit though that has come back and says we need to create MORE excellent bullets. I give my NCOs what they deserve, not to fill some damn quota.
Original Post
I was fortunate enough throughout my military career to have great leadership that always trusted and believed in me.

That being said, I always sat down and went over "benchmarks" with my Soldiers stating up front what they could expect on their NCOERs. There were no surprises when the time came for signatures.

Before I became a Career Counselor, I only had the opportunity to write about 10 NCOERs. All have since been promoted and two have been selected for SFC.
Well their success isn't really the issue. It's the changing of the NCOERs (in this case, to BETTER bullets that possibly they don't deserve).

I actually counsel my NCOs although I have never been properly counseled prior to receiving an NCOER.

It just ticks me off that every NCOER seems to be reviewed by some jerk off that isn't even in the soldier's rating chain...and demanding them to be changed. I have never balked and changed an NCOER that I thought was already appropriate...it's more or less the constant battle that ticks me off.
What some NCO's dont understand, overstated NCOERs can hurt you..badly. If you get an NCOER and positives are highly exaggerated, then you move to a unit or under a rater that doesnt do that and you get a FAIR NCOER...that past one that you thought made you look so great will now hurt you. Why? Anyone looking at your NCOERs will think that your perfomance is DROPPING.

I guess you can hope that your raters will keep on pushing the truth and making you look better than you are or for some of you..that you get to keep on writing your OWN NCOERs for some lazy bum to sign.
I agree with you 100%. Yet our CSM downrange is insisting that NCOs' NCOERs be changed to reflect higher scores.

I give my NCOs what I think they deserve. No more or less.

And don't get me started on writing your own NCOER. My last two I have practically written myself because if the person who was my rater did it, they would be half empty.
Well, I've been an NCO now for 7 months and still haven't received an NCOER. Wasn't I supposed to receive it within the first 30 days or something like that? Is there something I can do to change this? I have come to the conclusion that my unit just really doesn’t care about the soldiers/NCO's. I make suggestions and they just get thrown out the window. Sorry to sound like I'm bitching but....
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Charlie White:
Well, I've been an NCO now for 7 months and still haven't received an NCOER. Wasn't I supposed to receive it within the first 30 days or something like that? Is there something I can do to change this? I have come to the conclusion that my unit just really doesn’t care about the soldiers/NCO's. I make suggestions and they just get thrown out the window. Sorry to sound like I'm bitching but....
What you are thinking of is your NCOER counseling which is done on a 2166-8-1. Ask them for your NCOER counseling.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Charlie White:
Well, I've been an NCO now for 7 months and still haven't received an NCOER. Wasn't I supposed to receive it within the first 30 days or something like that? Is there something I can do to change this? I have come to the conclusion that my unit just really doesn’t care about the soldiers/NCO's. I make suggestions and they just get thrown out the window. Sorry to sound like I'm bitching but....


I'm sorry but how can you be an NCO and not know when "your" NCOER is due or WHEN "you" are supposed to be counseled? (yea it is your rater's responsibility, but also just as much yours)
quote:
Originally posted by 97E3L00PF:
What you are thinking of is your NCOER counseling which is done on a 2166-8-1. Ask them for your NCOER counseling.



Thats what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. I did ask them for it and all I get is the run-around.

To MaleNurse, sorry I'm not up to your standards. I'm still learning......
quote:
Originally posted by MaleNurse:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Charlie White:
Well, I've been an NCO now for 7 months and still haven't received an NCOER. Wasn't I supposed to receive it within the first 30 days or something like that? Is there something I can do to change this? I have come to the conclusion that my unit just really doesn’t care about the soldiers/NCO's. I make suggestions and they just get thrown out the window. Sorry to sound like I'm bitching but....


I'm sorry but how can you be an NCO and not know when "your" NCOER is due or WHEN "you" are supposed to be counseled? (yea it is your rater's responsibility, but also just as much yours)
I've just come to grips with the fact that NCOs are becoming NCOs first and learning later (unlike before where you learned to be an NCO first). Nothing I can do about it, just drive on.
I just wanted to bump this as the NCOERs I wrote for two of my NCOs before I PCS'd came back "ready for signature" after the BN CSM in Iraq who isn't even remotely in the NCOs' rating chains (the rating chain doesn't leave the company) has rewritten and removed bullets I put in the NCOER.

Granted, they aren't really changed too much and ratings themselves are the same...but I hate this BS.
Some examples...

I wrote: "o conducted rigorous physical training resulting in three of her four Soldiers achieving APFT scores over 270"

He wrote: He deleted my bullet, and replaced it with: "o never backed down from a challenge"


I wrote: "o stressed career development by encouraging and assisting two Soldiers in continuing their civilian education"

He wrote: Deleted bullet and replaced it with, "o sacrificed personal time to look after Soldiers' well being"


I wrote: "o emphasized safety throughout the unit's redeployment resulting in 100% accident free movement"

He wrote: Deleted bullet and replaced with: "o always maintained 100% accountability of Soldiers"


On another NCOER...


I wrote: "o relied upon by the Company leadership to accomplish tough tasks with short suspenses"

He wrote: "o excels in the absence of orders and guidance" (written incorrectly for an NCOER)


I wrote: "o mentored and encouraged a newly assigned Soldier on the Army Weight Program to reach his authorized body fat percentage"

He wrote: "o his squad always completes every task early and above the standard" (which, by the way, is written incorrectly for an NCOER)


I wrote: "Service School Instructor"

He replaced with: "Platoon Sergeant"


Everything (for the most part) in the second NCOER he replaced incorrectly (present tense instead of past).
It looks like he was trying to reduce the "wordiness". Except for the first example. Those are almost unrelated.

All of them do sound watered down though. It's no doubt your bullets sound more impressive. Apparently he thought they were still strong bullets even when toned down. Wierd.

I don't like the idea of other people changing your NCOERs though. That means that someone else is rating your soldier based on their interpretation of your comments. Anytime there is that much play to be had between ideas... there can't be a good outcome.
I understand your gripes. I am a Corporal and I have seen my share of BS in regards to NCOERs.

As far as CSM's changes, I think he probably was trying to help the rating by adding bullets that would help in the long run in front of those senior NCOs when it came time for review. I dont think he was trying to take credit, or take away from your verbage- just perhaps him being senior he may know which words and or phrases work best.

Though I do understand your argument, just trying to add a taste of positivity to this if thats allowed.

Hooah.
The bullets that you HAD up there 97E3L00PF sounded outstanding. I dont see either, the rationale they were changed to more generic bullets. About the excellence / sucess...THE first thing i was every taught / mentored about a NCOERS from my leadership was " A strong sucess is BETTER than a WEAK excellence, everyday".

When i was stationed at a MEPS....they tried to give me an excellence for 286PT (100 PU, 100 SU, 86 Run). I let my rater know (who was a marine)...cant do that. He almost did not want to listen to me...till i explained how it would make my ncoer look intentionally inflated...as my APFT was not worthy of an excellence.

But the bullets you had were very quantifyable, and truly could support an excellence mark. The bullets replaces were blanket/generic...and look to support a Sucess mark to me.

ALIBY/CAVIOT/SIDE BAR: I have drafted my Extended Annual NCOER now....as I am beging clearing in a week. Here is a good link, that i was unaware of before..and just came out by googling. ARMYSTUDYGUIDE.COM (well i be damned) - its a databank, that has excellence, sucess, needs improvement, etc etc NCOER BULLETS...with TONS of BULLET EXAMPLES. So when you are writing an NCOER, and run out of specific, detailed bullets, but there are alot more things to say.

Check it out, GREAT TOOL to Aid in Writing NCOER BULLETS:

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_...ullet-database.shtml
I seem to be seeing this a lot lately as well. For the most part, it seems as though this would be a practice most suited for TDA assignments whereas soldiers have less opportunity to accel in certain areas due to limited resources and positions. However it seems to be hitting mainstream in MTOE units as well.

I would attribute this to lack of quality time spent counseling and mentoring soldiers. It seems as though less time is being spent on NCOERs. I mean, afterall, isn't that why the Army decided to go with PureEdge and ApproveIt? To take the excessive time out of admin work.

The way I see it, the raters comments are the raters comments. If the senior rater does not believe that they are warranted, it should be discussed with the rater, but the senior rater or reviewer should not be "making" self-proclaimed bullets.

I prefer, that is a soldier has a question, to go back to the counselings. If done correctly, these should layout the bullets that a soldier gets regardless of personal acquaintance, etc. One big issue with NCOERs lately, is that soldiers are being counseled less and less and then at the end of the rating period, raters have to "make up" counseling dates and fabricate the records, if kept at all.

I realize that the Army is ever-so on the move, but come on, wouldn't you want your rater to put in the extra effort on your NCOER so that when you go up for E-7 or a Selective or Nominative assignment and these things are looked at you don't look like a bafoon?
Not to sound negative, but the NCOER system has been broke for some time. An honest rating might get shot down and changed to something completely false. Lack of counseling is a major problem becuase when rating time comes around..there is nothing to support the truth. We DO have sub-standard NCOs in the ranks today. I know...it's hard to believe. Make them earn everything you give them. They should expect no less. Nobody should write thier own NCOER...even though it happens all the time,
97E3L00PF, just replying `cuz you asked. I am by no means an NCOER expert (never written one myself).

Quantitative statements should always be preferred over qualitative.
quote:
o conducted rigorous physical training resulting in three of her four Soldiers achieving APFT scores over 270
Good example. A squad average might have been used instead. Remember that Army writing should be short and to the point.

quote:
o stressed career development by encouraging and assisting two Soldiers in continuing their civilian education

How much education? How did the NCO help?

quote:
o emphasized safety throughout the unit's redeployment resulting in 100% accident free movement

Fair enough
quote:
o relied upon by the Company leadership to accomplish tough tasks with short suspenses
"Company leadership" could probably be replaced by "Commander", "tough tasks" is subjective.
quote:
o mentored and encouraged a newly assigned Soldier on the Army Weight Program to reach his authorized body fat percentage
Something like "administered a weight control program within her squad resulting in 100% compliance with Army standards". Don't tell stories.

quote:
He wrote: He deleted my bullet, and replaced it with: "o never backed down from a challenge"
So? Is that noteworthy? was the NCO ever challenged?
quote:
o sacrificed personal time to look after Soldiers' well being
And he bothered to write this down? What about the soldier's well being needed looking after?
quote:
o always maintained 100% accountability of Soldiers
This kind of works.
quote:
o excels in the absence of orders and guidance
How do we know this? Tarrot cards? Numerology? or did the soldier demonstrate it during the rated period? Excels in what way? Subjective term again.

quote:
I wrote: "Service School Instructor"

He replaced with: "Platoon Sergeant"


Is this for current or recommended position?

As far as the rating chain issues, I can't speak with authority on what input the CSM should or should not have. For me, I would submit it the way I wanted it and take into consideration the opinions of others (participative leadership). I wouldn't let someone outside of the rating chain write it for me.
I didnt see any thing wrong with your original bullets. Its seems very strange that a CSM would offer such watered down and in some cases irrelevant bullets as a substitute. Most times CSMs are on NCOs cases for using "cookie cutter" bullets and how that they need justify a rating of excellence etc.... Very strange.
97E3L00PF - In my opinion, your bullets were justified and actually spoke about specific acts. A former BN CSM probably gave our NCOs the best NCODP when he pointed out that we needed to be specific - both about the NCO we were rating and an act or acts that the NCO performed during that rating period. As far as "cookie cutter" statements - those are copouts and show that the rater is not taking the NCOER seriously. Keep up the good (and honest) work.
It is time I give some feedback to this post.
I deal with NCOERs every day and how we do it, we let the rater write an NCOER and I will correct it as the PAC SGT, but I will only make changes in spelling and formatting. I folder it up and give it to the 1SG who reviews the strength of the bullets and verifies the accuracy. Usually he'll make changes, but only recommends changes, ie. he wants the NCOER to be more about the rated NCO's accomplishments.
Once those final changes are made I get it back and send it to BN S-1. BN S-1 reviews it for spelling once more and formatting accuracy and sends it to CSM. The CSM rarely ever sees anything wrong with our NCOERs. There is a clear understanding on who is authorized to change what on the NCOERs, and I'll tell you it changes on which CSM you have. Some CSMs like to be in control when it comes to the bullets and they are straight up wrong. However, a CSM could easily read this and state that they are doing it to benefit the Soldier's NCOER. This is understandable in some cases, but it is stepping on people's toes by going in a lane that isn't theirs.
97E, I think your bullets were just fine. They seemed to be of a higher quality than the CSM's bullets. He changed bullets that did not have anything wrong with them just because he felt like changing them. If that is the standard for your BN, you may as well turn in a blank form and have him rate the NCO. Address this issue through your chain because this way you'll be making changes to NCOERs over and over. Another option is to just not change the bullets the CSM wanted you to change it to and when questioned (if you even get questioned on it) you can discuss your reason. It takes a little more guts to do this, but maybe it will bring a point across and things will get better because of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Smittaayy:
It looks like he was trying to reduce the "wordiness". Except for the first example. Those are almost unrelated.

All of them do sound watered down though. It's no doubt your bullets sound more impressive. Apparently he thought they were still strong bullets even when toned down. Wierd.

I don't like the idea of other people changing your NCOERs though. That means that someone else is rating your soldier based on their interpretation of your comments. Anytime there is that much play to be had between ideas... there can't be a good outcome.


what it looks like to me, and I've been in a PSB and an S1 as an Evaluations clerk, is that the CSM is getting his bullets out of one of those "NCOER smartbooks." These things are watered for a reason, they take some general statements that can fit several scenarios. The main problem is that the first bullet on the first NCOER is strong, shows leadership and bearing and competency, the replacement is a wishy-washy comment on the NCO's character.

35M3L00PF, you're actually evaluating your NCOs while others (which might be in line with some obscure BN Policy that's probably leveling the BC's desk) that saves the weaker NCOs from actually THINKING. What's worse is that this CSM, or an agent of the CSM, is lowering the bar and doing the entire BN a disservice.

If it was me, and I had received those bullets, especially if I had seen the bullets that had been written, I'd be looking at appealing my NCOER... just to get someone else's eyes on it.


WHOA!! you're CSM deleted a Mandatory Safety bullet? Not good. I'm gonna go grumble and study for the SSG Board...gotta fix this problem somehow...

Have a good one and watch out for Squirrels.
Changing someones words is still changing it! ...and thats not right!

I think the Army needs to really take a strong stance and enforce that no one is to change what the rater writes.

Until that happens we will not have a fair playing field. That is assuming the rater is fair, factual and honest.

Or maybe I missed the point and NCOERS are supposed to be like the band folks with all kinds of shinny stuff on their chest....

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×