Military Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, videos - Military Times

Raters need guidance

For 20 years, the Air Force has struggled with inflated enlisted performance reviews.

Leaders revised the job evaluation form twice, completely overhauling it in 1989 and then tweaking it in 2007. The bloated scores shrank a little both times, then crept back up.

Now, there’s a different tact by the service’s top enlisted airman: Hold the raters accountable.

Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James Roy told senior noncommissioned officers at the recent Air Force Association conference not to look to him to fix EPRs because he’s not going to — they are.

The answer isn’t another new grading sheet or an edict from on high, Roy said. It’s honest assessments. No more “firewall 5s,” the maximum score, unless an airman is truly among the best.

“You’ve got to make that hard call,” Roy told his audience.

Roy is right to hold raters accountable.

Raters are largely responsible for inflated EPRs; overly generous evaluations have become so common that many simply have lost sight of what truly is exceptional performance. That not only inflates the ratings of those not working to top standards, it dilutes the achievements of those who are.

Raters indeed can reform EPRs on their own. No more Mr. Nice Guy: When airmen don’t merit 5s, the raters need to mark them down to what they have earned.

Good leaders make tough choices, but good leaders also give direction and provide feedback.

Roy would help raters immensely if he saw to it that raters had much more specific guidance on performance standards. It would also help raters to have an online forum — similar to one for the Air Force’s mentoring program — where squadron commanders and senior NCOs could discuss their EPR challenges. The training that raters receive for that role is a start, but they need clear guidance and understanding of performance standards.

DISCUSS: The editorial