U.S. TOTAL ARMY PERSONNEL COMMAND Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System - Training Briefing 2002 Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System - Training Briefing 2002

POLICY MGR: SGM A. Ray Everette DSN CML (703) Mailing Address: Commander PERSCOM ATTN: TAPC-MSE 200 Stovall Street Alexandria, VA NCO-ER DA PERSCOM

PAST NCO-ER SYSTEMS HISTORY DA FORM FROM TO DURATION Commander’s Evaluation Reports OCT MAR 63 4 YRS 5 MO APR MAR 68 5 YRS Enlisted Efficiency/Evaluation Report (EERs) APR JUN 70 2 YRS 3 M JUL JUN 75 5 YRS JUL SEP 81 6 YRS 3 MO A “ - ” “ ” OCT FEB 88 6 YRS 5 MO NCO Evaluation Report (NCO-ER) MAR OCT YRS 8 MO NOV 01 - PRESENT

ALL EXCELLENCE NCO-ER PERCENTAGE REPORTED BY EREC

NCO-ER INFLATION Reports received with all five ‘excellence’ marks (a ‘max’ report) has remained in the low 2% range since However, board after-action reports continually state: ---too many NCO-ERs have ‘unjustified’ excellence marks - if there are no quantifiable accomplishments then the board considers it only a ‘successful’ rating. ---too many NCOs are receiving ‘Among the Best’ ratings by the rater -- boards have difficulty determining rater’s intent. ---too many senior raters do not address potential in their bullets -- tell the board who they should promote, the type of assignments best suitable for the rated NCO, and the schooling the NCO should attend.

AR  Released January 2002  Established Senior Rater Option Report  Established Sixty-Day Short Tour Option Report  Changed Complete-the-Record Report requirement from six months to 90 rated days  Deleted requirement to include APFT score to justify excellence  Eliminates NCO-ER requirement for CSMs serving in  3/4-star position  Incorporated changes from MILPER Message  Clarified policies and procedures

MILPER MESSAGE PROCEDURAL CHANGES TO THE NCO-ER  Previous changes already in effect and included in revised AR : Retirement reports of less than one year are at option of rater, senior rater, or  when requested by the rated NCO Box marks may be either typewritten or handwritten Frocked rank will be identified for the rated NCO and the rating chain Weigh-in will be as of the last unit weigh-in or if no weigh-in, as of the  THRU date of the report Medical conditions may be cited for noncompliance with AR 600-9, “NO”  entry is still required for not meeting the height/weight standard Requirement to enter “within body fat standards of AR 600-9” is deleted

DA Form Contains current Army Values in Part IVa - implemented with reports ending NOV 2001 and later Available for download at See MILPER Message (Implementation Guidance) Major Concerns: --FROM and THRU dates --NCO’s signature --Counseling dates/APFT dates --Bullet format --PMOS format

NCO-ER HOT ISSUES Gaps in Reporting Periods/Use of AKO Addresses Lack of counseling or insufficient (non-specific) counseling Inappropriate (unproven derogatory) comments Weak bullets on ‘excellence’ or ‘needs improvement’ ratings Senior Rater comments/Reviewer Responsibilities Rating Schemes Commander’s Inquiries

RATER TIPS °Address strongest Values (in Part IVa) with substantive comments °Clearly articulate failures (‘NO’ entries) - avoid vague comments °Paint clear and accurate portrait of rated NCO °Reflect significant accomplishments during rating period on report °AMONG THE BEST = absolute top performers °FULLY CAPABLE = good performers but less than the best °MARGINAL = failed one or more standards °Render fair, accurate and unbiased reports PLAN AHEAD -- Know your subordinates Foster atmosphere for success

SENIOR RATER TIPS “1” = cream of the crop; promote immediately “2” = a solid citizen; strong recommendation for promotion “3” = a good performance; promote if allocations allow “4” = weak performer; do not promote “5” = poor performer; consider for QMP  Must address Potential (promotion, schools, assignments) Be on same sheet of music as rater throughout rating period - resolve differences early on to avoid discrepancies on NCO-ER “PLAN AHEAD -- Identify your Best” Do NOT use quotas!!

Personnelist Points Responsible for overall success of the system Subject Matter Expert within organization Be thoroughly familiar with regulatory guidance (read regulation and visit website often to keep abreast on info) Provide guidance and assistance as needed Thoroughly review completed reports before submission --Verify FROM and THRU dates --Check bullet formats for uniformity --Check signatures/dates --Ensure all boxes are checked as required --Timeliness and accuracy are major concerns

CSM/SGM Points Overall care-takers of the system Active involvement a must Counsel/mentor rating officials and rated NCOs on the NCO-ER process Review completed reports before submission and resolve discrepancies as needed --Ensure accuracy and fairness --Senior NCO leader is the soldier’s advocate --Advise commander on commander’s inquiries --Insist upon timely and accurate preparation and submission of NCO-ERs

NCO-ER PREPARATION/REVIEW Part I - Administrative Data --Verify all information is complete and accurate --From date is always month ‘after’ end date of last report --New DA requires 4-digit year for FROM and THRU dates (‘2002’ instead of ‘02’) - same applies for page two of the form (at the top) Part II - Authentication --Ensure rating officials are accurate and in accordance with AR ; & signatures/dates are in sequence

NCO-ER PREPARATION/REVIEW Part III - Duty Description --Verify duty title and description is accurate portrayal of NCO’s most significant duties/responsibilities --Make counseling a priority- don’t fudge dates Part IVa - NCO Values --all NCOs expected to meet Army values --bullet comments mandatory for ‘NO’ entries --precede all comments with small ‘o’ (bullets do not require capitalization or punctuation)

NCO-ER PREPARATION/REVIEW Parts IVb-f - NCO Responsibilities --essential that rater accurately articulates NCO’s performance, accomplishments, & contributions --Boards look for clear, concise bullets - the intended message should be clear - do not make boards guess --Use ‘action’ words and avoid personal pronouns/names --bullet comments mandatory for ‘excellence’ or ‘needs improvement’ ratings --bullet comments should address past tense for contributions/achievements; present tense for Values

NCO-ER PREPARATION/REVIEW Parts Va-b - Overall Performance/Potential (Rater) --Can not check ‘among the best’ if there is a ‘needs improvement’ block checked in Parts IVb-f --May check ‘among the best’ with all success ratings - key is bullet comments --Must list minimum of two positions for future assignments at CURRENT or NEXT higher grade

NCO-ER PREPARATION/REVIEW Parts Vc-e - Overall Performance/Potential (Senior Rater) --One of the most crucial portions of the report --Must address POTENTIAL - may address performance --Place strongest bullet up-front --Be clear and to the point See NCO Preparation Guide posted online for more detailed instructions on preparing evaluation reports:

WHAT BOARDS LOOK FOR Consistency - board looks for consistency in performance and rating throughout the entire file with particular focus on the last five years/current grade; level of performance; trends in efficiency; military & civilian education; professional values; range and variety of assignments Best reports are those with three ‘clearly justified’ excellence ratings and two success ratings with strong bullet comments as opposed to five excellence check marks Senior Rater markings of ‘1’ and ‘1’ standout, particularly when supported by strong bullet comments; less significant when comment is lukewarm or vague; a S/R marking of ‘2’ is still good when sprinkled among several reports of ‘1’ ratings; recent board comments indicate that too many NCOs are receiving 1/1 S/R marks without bullet comments to support the rating NCO-ER is most significant document in file when considering NCO for promotions/advanced schools (also views awards, PQR, Photo, UCMJ)

NCO-ER HOT ISSUES FOR BOARDS Consider for elimination under Qualitative Management Program (QMP): ----Record of decline in performance (two or more substandard reports in last five years) ----Disciplinary Problems ----Weight Control Problems ----APFT Failures ----Failure to meet Army Values

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITY Overall caretaker of system (honest-broker) ----Reviews reports to ensure consistency, accuracy, and fairness ----Resolve discrepancies between rater and senior rater ----If discrepancy can not be resolved “after” discussing with both rating officials, then reviewer nonconcurs and attaches memorandum ----If rater and senior rater agree on evaluation but reviewer does not, then reviewer ‘may’ nonconcur but must clearly articulate reason for nonconcurrence (creates question of integrity in rating officials) ----Army trusts rater and senior rater to be fair and accurate in rendering reports - reviewer’s role is ‘not’ to provide a 3rd evaluation

Sample NCO-ER (page 1)

Sample NCO-ER (page 2) TIPS: --S/R focus on promotion, schools, assignments --Lead off with your strongest excellence bullet

NCO-ER Website located at: - Available Options NCO-ER Updates NCO-ER Preparation Guide - September 2001 NCO-ER Briefing for CSMs NCO-ER Training Briefing Frequently Asked Questions Bullet Examples and Explanations Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System - AR HOT ISSUES

SUPPORT POINT OF CONTACTS NCO-ER/Commander’s Inquiry EREC NCO-ERs /9 Promotions-HQDA NCO-ER IVRS APPEALS EREC SGM ENLISTED MICROFICHE

Regulatory and policy questions: DSN: (Evaluation Systems Office) (Commercial prefix ) PERSCOM POINTS OF CONTACT PERSCOM On-Line: NCO-ER Website: **View Quarterly NCO-ER Updates and share with all NCOs and officers