Why EPR inflation will never stop.

[Silver Fox]

The good ol' boy system. Plain and simple.

The CMSAF just stated he wants EPR inflation to stop ASAP. I died laughing. It will never happen. The problem is too much interaction between supervisors and the personnel below them that they rate.

An E-5 and an E-6 hang out together, or have worked together for years. That E-6 really likes that E-5 and wants to see him go on to great things, therefore, whether the E-5 rates a firewall five or not by the standard, he will always rate a firewall five in that supervisors eyes. In the reverse of that, the E-5 supervises two E-4's, one he has known for years and thinks is a real golden boy, the other just arrived to the unit with a bad rep, the golden boy gets a firewall five, the new troop gets a three or a four.

It's politics. You will never change it unless you put the rating system in the hands of SNCO's who can look at troops objectively based on all the positive and negative feedback they receive because they don't interact with the troop daily. This is a horrible thing to say, but it's the truth. Air Force NCOs have lost the ability to be objective with their troops and let their personal interactions affect their judgement too much. They willingly inflate EPRs to put people beneath them into good jobs and positions because it reflects well on both troop and supervisor, and hey, someday that troop will owe the supervisor a favor eh?

The worst part is the blatant lies and falsehoods in EPRs. I remember coming back from an ILO deployment and finding that NONE OF THE THINGS I DID while deployed were in my EPR, and I was damn proud of those accomplishments. I still got a five, but my achievements would have made it a firewall five and it was watered down with fluff bullets and things I never did. The next year, I didn't do half as much and got a firewall five from a different guy, and agian, my EPR was stuffed with shit I don't ever recall doing.

This is the same situation for awards packages and "Airman/NCO of the Quarter" and "BTZ" as well. The higher ups get together and predetermine who *WILL* get Airman or NCO of the quarter and who *WILL* get BTZ in their unit, then they write packages accordingly. They submit a lot of people sure, but their packages are intentionally watered down and the pre-chosen recipient's package is beefed up as much as possible. The entire system is fake.

Next, there is no clear criteria on what rates a "Firewall Five". My last EPR for example, was my strongest yet, and all the bullets were true, correct and accurate. It was definately firewall material. I got one, but then I see other EPRs that are not as strong that are also Firewall 5's. How do you determine what merits 'above and beyond'? There seems to be no guidance.

Medals are just as bad. Going above and beyond at work alone is not enough to earn a medal. No, you have to be a politician. He who kisses the most ass leaves with the biggest ribbon rack. In other words, you have to give up all of your off time to get face time with your higher ups and kiss their asses, bow to every single demand, fuck your troops out of their off time so they'll show up to the bullshit unit functions that most would rather overdose on sleeping pills then attend... you can be horrible at your actual job, but if you organize a flight barbeque... LOOK OUT SON HERE COMES SPEED RACER TO THE FINISH LINE.

It's the same way for disciplinary action. Someone's golden boy gets in trouble and it is swept under the carpet, three days later someone else does the same thing, and they are no one's 'boy', so they get hammered.
Case in Point: I knew a Staff Sergeant that showed up to work drunk, they assigned him somewhere without a weapon and kept it quiet. Two weeks later a Senior Airman that wasn't particularly cared for showed up to work drunk, he just put Senior Airman back on three months ago.

Everyone knows it's true, but no one will talk about it. It's a disgusting truth. I've been on both sides of it, I've had supervisors who would refuse to believe I screwed up, and when I actually did it was shrugged off with a pat on the back and 'hey everyone makes mistakes', then I've had supervisors who would pummel me into the ground (Figuratively of course) over the slightest, honest mistakes. I've had supervisors who refused to believe I could be capable of a firewall five EPR, and supervisors who believed I could do no less than a firewall five EPR. I think I've probably only rated a firewall five twice, my first EPR and my most recent EPR. The ones in between were 4's. One three. Out of those: I've received 5's or firewall 5's. My first EPR was not a firewall, but it should have been. My last EPR was, and it should've been. None of the one's in between deserved that.

Really, if it was no longer part of the promotion system, people would rate EPRs a lot more fairly. As it stands, as long as you're counting points for promotion on these ratings and it's first line supervisors who have the most input on how they are rated, they will continue to be inflated. I would recommend making the EPR not count towards promotion, or perhaps making only NEGATIVE EPRs (two and below) count, but count AGAINST your promotion, so everyone that meets the standard or above is on the same footing. Now, you'll say that if 3 thru 5 are all the same no one will want to be a five. That's incorrect. That's what an awards and decoration system is for. Those 4 and 5 epr's should be recognized with medals and awards, which will enhance their chances of promotion. The 4 and 5 ratings themselves should NOT count towards this.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I also think that all raters should have an "Average Rating" attached to the EPRs they write. This will help commanders and SNCO's spot the raters who inflate EPRs. If your average EPR rating is a 4, 4.5 or a 5... odds are... you're full of shit. Let's be honest: The majority of the Air Force is NOT that great. A 4 *could* be justifiable, but a 5? No chance in hell. If a SNCO notices a raters average is that high, he can bring the hammer down and start paying closer attention to that supervisors EPRs and investigate them to ensure they're accurate and not inflated.

Of course, what the hell do I know? I'm just a Staff Sergeant, we're only glorified Senior Airmen these days.

[SecurityForces695]

Amen.* All my troops are asking me if I am going to give them a 5 on their next EPR, and im the dick because I tell them they have to earn that 5.* If they are great I'll recognize it, but at the same time if they dont deserve it why do I have to justify an average rating?* Why cant more folks have to justify a 5 rating?* The EPR is bs, and I agree with Silver Fox, the awards and decs follow the higher rating.* If you are average, you should not stand out.* If you are truly among the best, you will be that person with ribbons tearing your service dress in half, having folks question you all the time 'did you earn all those?' I love telling other Air Force folks 'naw, they were having a sale at clothing sales today, if you hurry you can get the rest of em I didnt pick up'

[smarg]

Two possible solutions:

- Stratify every E-5 and above in the body of the EPR by the senior rater

- Eliminate access to the EPR by the member until separation or retirement for total honesty

[Vince]

I'll weigh in here with some of my own experience(s): no rater really wants to weather the storm of giving less than a five. The storm from the senior rater and higher begin questioning you about why...it's simply far easier to give a 5 than try to justify a 3 or even a 4.
I ambarked on giving a 4 to a senior airmen one-time, when the Superintendant (MSgt) pulled me aside and gave me the long spiel about 5 years in his rating string, ineligible for BTZ, etc.., Now not to say that he didn't support me in my judgement, but there was pressure there to perhaps fully understand the implications of less than a 5.
And there-in lies the problem...a 4 is viewed as disastrous, real and implied on someone's career. To be honest, I had a four in my string and when they thing was at the top it cost me (IIRC) something like 20 points....that's too much weight for a 4 that's supposed to be "good". Further, if you give someone a 4 it's not just a mark on the paper...you affect their career in a negative sense for years to come. Applying for a special duty with a four in your string (top 3 anyway)? FORGET IT. SrA BTZ with a 4? I DON"T THINK SO. And then there's the WAPS points I mentioned above.

Again, for a 4 to be "good"...it has real, negative, consequences for someone and that needs to change. Too.

[Silver Fox]

Yeah that's something I forgot to mention too....

A HUGE reason EPRs are inflated are because every special duty or 'back office' job requires all 5 EPRs in the job advertisement. Everytime I see one it almost always says, "Must have 5's on last three EPRs." or "4 and Below EPRs need not apply". Etc. etc. It should be mandated AIR FORCE WIDE that a 3 be the minimum standard, as that is according to the EPR, the standard. If the troop is a 2 or a 1, fine, deny them that duty. But a 3 is at the standard, and if no 4's or 5's apply, then that 3 should get the job.

[JeffyB]

I was working in the APR shop at Kadena CBPO when the new EES system came on board. At the time, the focus was that although there was no official "quota", the majority of the ratings would be 4s, and a 3 would be for those who showed up, did their job, and left. 5s were to be given to those who went "above and beyond" and should only be given to those who really truly deserved the top rating - if you could STEP them tomorrow, you would.

Unfortunately, the stigma of a 4 being a bad rating developed (partly due to the impact on the WAPS system), and 10 years later, we're having the same problem that we had with the old APR system - instead of inflated 9s, we've got inflated 5s.

One way to change the system, IMO, is to have bullet descriptions in the various categories and blocks for "Promote Now" (for those truly deserving STEP), "Promote when Eligible", and "Do Not Promote", with "DNP" being a referral report. Reports with "Promote Now" need to have documentation to go along with it to show the rating chain as to why they should get the rating - above and beyond customer service/job performance on duty, off duty volunteer service; etc.

Also, it's up to the supervisor to have that up front (and continuing) feedback stating what's needed to obtain that 5/"Promote Now", and that just doing the job isn't going to get you anything more than a 3 or 4. In addition, that supervisor needs to relay that criteria to their reporting chain so they don't have any questions when Little Johnny's or Suzie's report comes to them for review with a 3 or 4 on it.

[THELADYKT]

Two possible solutions:

- Stratify every E-5 and above in the body of the EPR by the senior rater

- Eliminate access to the EPR by the member until separation or retirement for total honesty

Point 1 I completely agree with you. Second point no. Sorry but from someone that got screwed by a sexist a$$hole when I was in maintenance, this is a bad idea. After the report was a matter of record (before the ratee had to sign it), it took an act of god to get it removed which I never accomplished and it did haunt me a couple of years later when I went for BTZ (another story but the same a$$hole caused me trouble then).

Until they take the EPRs out of the WAPS promotion system, it will continue to be inflated as was the APR system before it. The other thing I don't want to see happen is what happened when EPRs first came out, quotas.......

For those of you who don't remember this, each squadron set a quota on how many 5, 4, 3 it could give out based on how many in the squadron......So guess what, you could be the next coming of John Levitow but if your EPR was late in the "cycle" and all the 5s were "taken" guess what happened to you?

[Measure Man]

Point 1 I completely agree with you. Second point no. Sorry but from someone that got screwed by a sexist a$$hole when I was in maintenance, this is a bad idea. After the report was a matter of record (before the ratee had to sign it), it took an act of god to get it removed which I never accomplished and it did haunt me a couple of years later when I went for BTZ (another story but the same a$$hole caused me trouble then).

Until they take the EPRs out of the WAPS promotion system, it will continue to be inflated as was the APR system before it. The other thing I don't want to see happen is what happened when EPRs first came out, quotas.......

For those of you who don't remember this, each squadron set a quota on how many 5, 4, 3 it could give out based on how many in the squadron......So guess what, you could be the next coming of John Levitow but if your EPR was late in the "cycle" and all the 5s were "taken" guess what happened to you?

I believe a quota system is the answer to inflation.

The solution to your problem...is to do all the EPRs for the same grade at the same time (maybe just prior to PECD). So, you write EPRs for all your E-5s in the same month. For every 10 Airmen, you get 2 fives, 4 fours, 4 threes or lower.

While it may be tough for the "new guy" to crack the fives...if he bounces up next year, it'll show over the course of a career. For units with less than 10...you roll up to the next higher level, sort of like the base BTZ board.

The majority of people will have a majority of 3s or 4s EPRs this way...better performers will have 4s and some 5s...poorer performers will get 3s...or 3s with some 4s. Only truly outstanding would have a consistent track record of 5s. I imagine it would be very few.

I also like the idea of the putting the "rater's average" value on the EPR. That would probably go a long way towards curbing inflation...

I don't get taking the EPRs out of WAPs...sure it might curb inflation, but then who would care? If your poor performers had the same opportunity to promote as superior performers...what difference would it make what their EPRs said? What woudl the EPRs be for if not to decide who is ready to advance to the next rank?

[THELADYKT]

I believe a quota system is the answer to inflation.

The solution to your problem...is to do all the EPRs for the same grade at the same time (maybe just prior to PECD). So, you write EPRs for all your E-5s in the same month. For every 10 Airmen, you get 2 fives, 4 fours, 4 threes or lower.

While it may be tough for the "new guy" to crack the fives...if he bounces up next year, it'll show over the course of a career. For units with less than 10...you roll up to the next higher level, sort of like the base BTZ board.

The majority of people will have a majority of 3s or 4s EPRs this way...better performers will have 4s and some 5s...poorer performers will get 3s...or 3s with some 4s. Only truly outstanding would have a consistent track record of 5s. I imagine it would be very few.

I also like the idea of the putting the "rater's average" value on the EPR. That would probably go a long way towards curbing inflation...

I don't get taking the EPRs out of WAPs...sure it might curb inflation, but then who would care? If your poor performers had the same opportunity to promote as superior performers...what difference would it make what their EPRs said? What woudl the EPRs be for if not to decide who is ready to advance to the next rank?

This is the way the Navy does theirs. In a way it is better I think to do it the way you mention......The only thing is that things would have to be careful watched for new guys into the unit that they get credit for everything they did at their last bases and dont get screwed just because they are the new guy.

The other thing the navy does is the average thing but its based of the raters rater........Which makes a little more sense if you think about it. If you are a rater and only have one ratee under you, then what??? but usually (not always) the rater's rater does have more than one ratee to make more of an average.

[Silver Fox]

I
One way to change the system, IMO, is to have bullet descriptions in the various categories and blocks for "Promote Now" (for those truly deserving STEP), "Promote when Eligible", and "Do Not Promote", with "DNP" being a referral report. Reports with "Promote Now" need to have documentation to go along with it to show the rating chain as to why they should get the rating - above and beyond customer service/job performance on duty, off duty volunteer service; etc.


I like this idea, it has merit.

I mean seriously, if you had to justify a STEP promotion everytime you wrote a firewall 5, far less people would get them... but it makes sense, because seriously if you truly ARE the definition of a "Firewall 5" Airman, you deserve a STEP Promotion. Excellent idea Jeffy.

[imnohero]

EPRs will always be over inflated because it's a subjective rating taken out of context. Here's what I mean:

The grade, 1-5, on the EPR from is the raters opinion of how the person compares to their peers, there is no standard of behavior or accomplishment for the ratings on the back. If I have 10 airman, all referal reports for failure to meet standards grade on the front, they could all get a "3" on the back. They are all equal...equally bad, but equal. There is no guidance to prevent this from occuring, though no SNCO would let this happen.

BUT you say, those 10 airman are not in a vacuum...what about the other airman in the AFSC but not in that unit? Good point. How do I know as a rater in unit A what the rest of that persons peers are doing worldwide? That's who they compete against for promotion, everyone in the same grade in the same AFSC everywhere. So maybe, you think your top 1 or 2 of 20 crew chiefs should get a 5...but what if they are big fish in a little pond? Even if you know some of what happens outside your unit, it would be very difficult to provide a truely objective rating across any career field, even a small one. Quotas won't fix this problem. Because quotas are equally subjective, it just moves it to a different part of the decision chain.

So what do we do? How do we create an objective rating (or more objective) that is tamper proof, verifiable, and fair? personally I would make the following changes:
1) The front of the form, 4 grades: Doesn't meet, meets, exceeds standards, non-applicable (E.g. not everyone is on mobility status, not everyone is eligible for PME every year, why grade them on items that are not applicable)
2) Narrow the field of the catergories on the front. If we need to have all that stuff rated, rate them separately.
3) Eliminate the 1-5 rating. 2 blocks, don't promote and promote. Don't promote gets 100 points on WAPS, Promote gets 135. So even if your rating chain "screws" you, you can still test out and get promoted.
4) Eliminate all but 3 lines of bullets. The rater has 3 lines to justify the don't promote block rating, otherwise leave it blank.
5) member, rater's rater, and unit commander get concur/non-concur blocks, no more senior endorsement
6) EPR kicks out for review if 2 of 3 non-concur with raters marks
7) Put the whole thing on VMPF and digitally sign it

Eliminates some of the subjectivity on the front, and most of it on the back. Saves time by not having to write 15 lines of bullets, helps curb undue influence, has a checks & balances built in, automated processing. Why you might be able to complete an EPR in 30 days, starting after the rating period ends, and before the MPF suspense...shocking, I know...instead of starting an EPR 90-120 days before the closeout date.

[AF Chief]

I was a SSgt when the new EPR system with the "5" rating system replaced APRs in 1990/91. I got a "4" that year. That same year I was "Information Manager of the Year" for that base. But, because I worked at the squadron level, I got a "4" while other 3As at the Wing level got their "5"s. So at that time there was a quotea.

That "4" didn't keep me from getting promoted, but it didn't help either. I think the system is overinflated. I am fair when it comes to giving out "5"s. I tell my people you don't earn a "5" EPR just for showing up for work.

I also tell them that they don't earn a PCS decoration for 1 year's of good work. A PCS decoration is for the entire period you spent at that base for "Sustained Superior Peformance". So don't expect to get a decoration out of me if you have been in trouble, less than stellar EPRs for your time working for me, all rolled up into one.

Its a system that is broke and I hope we can get it back on the right track. I don't see that happening anytime soon, but I will do my part to make it right.

[Q1Checkride]

instead of using the accomplishment/result/impact bullet format most of us use today, i really wish we could go back to writing EPRs in this style, which was taken off my very first EPR in 1993. to me, writing this way was a lot simpler and took much LESS time to do.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/424/1eprfh2.jpg

how many of us waste untold man hours searching for the right words so that the bullet will 'quantify' the accomplishment or 'have a bigger impact' AND take up as much space on the line as possible? every time i hear the word 'quantify' or statements like 'well, we need to show the kinds of things the Amn/NCO/SNCO/Sqdn or whatever other kinds of awards boards are looking for' on the EPR" makes me want to just grab somebody and punch them. who gives a fuck? i'm so sick of this shit. i say the inflation is in the writing as well as the ratings.

and lets be honest, how many people really need to review' the EPR before it can 'go final'? in my squadron the review process looks like this, flight chief, flight commander, CSS, section commander, 1st shirt, DOE, SEM, CEM, vice commander, and finally the CC. a routing process that consists of 10 people folks. that is ridiculous! since most of us are in jobs that are way undermanned / overworked as it is and along with all the other bullshit 'taskings' we get handed out to us i.e., whatever the CBT of the week is, no wonder most squadrons start the process 2 months or more from closeout date. it takes that long for everyone to 'get eyes on it', and most of the time the closeout suspense is still busted. grrrrrrrrr...............

[VFFSSGT]

The 1 - 5 rating needs to go for sure. Use the category areas on front with 1-2 bullets per category to highlight significant achievements or the lack thereof. A second rater or additional rater should also have to mark the same categories without the bullets on the back. There should be no markings or comments about promotion or the famous promote now line. A composite score is then derived from all marks (average) on the report instead of a simple 1-5. The score for promtion should be the average of all reports. The routing process does need to be simplified throughout the entire Air Force!

Marking Line Up Suggestion for each category:

Does not conform to Standards - (0 Points)
Conforms little of the time - (25 points)
Conforms some of the time - (50 points)
Conforms most of the time - (75 points)
Always Conforms to Standards (100 points)
Exceeds Few Standards - (125 points)
Exceeds Most Standards - (150 points)
Exceeds All Standards - (175 points)

Something all those lines... Weapons scores should also affect promotion points, PT scores should affect promotion points, and other tangible items.

[CrustySMSgt]

I believe a quota system is the answer to inflation.

The solution to your problem...is to do all the EPRs for the same grade at the same time (maybe just prior to PECD). So, you write EPRs for all your E-5s in the same month. For every 10 Airmen, you get 2 fives, 4 fours, 4 threes or lower.

While it may be tough for the "new guy" to crack the fives...if he bounces up next year, it'll show over the course of a career. For units with less than 10...you roll up to the next higher level, sort of like the base BTZ board.

The majority of people will have a majority of 3s or 4s EPRs this way...better performers will have 4s and some 5s...poorer performers will get 3s...or 3s with some 4s. Only truly outstanding would have a consistent track record of 5s. I imagine it would be very few.

I also like the idea of the putting the "rater's average" value on the EPR. That would probably go a long way towards curbing inflation...

I don't get taking the EPRs out of WAPs...sure it might curb inflation, but then who would care? If your poor performers had the same opportunity to promote as superior performers...what difference would it make what their EPRs said? What woudl the EPRs be for if not to decide who is ready to advance to the next rank?

100% agreement from me! Understand there will be a HUGE turmoil to bring the dream to fruition... but in the end, it will make for a better system, because those who rise to the top no matter where they are will stand out. It will be a tough sell to take a bit of control out of the hands of the immediate supervisor, because then the impression will be that just the ass-kissers will recognize. I know we are all busy, but to make this work, there has to be some sort of forum for supervisors to stand up and speak for their Airmen... like an awards board, where you get them all together, they throw everything on the table, and come to a consensus. If they can't decide, then the next level up makes the tough calls. Then supervisors will actually have to do their job and know their Airmen and be able to advocate on their behalf and defend their position in front of their peers and leadership. Supervisors who can't come up with justification for their ratings beyond, "he's a great guy and shows up to work on time" will highlight themselves to the next level of leadership, who can use that when it comes time to rack & stack the next level.

There will a a week or two where there will be a lot of time and effort put into each promotion cycle, but then for the rest of the year, you wan't have to do anything more than give feedback and do your job.

[sigecaps]

Something all those lines... Weapons scores should also affect promotion points, PT scores should affect promotion points, and other tangible items.

I don't think we'll fix the promotion process by elevating things that have no impact on leadership ability. I see a lot of "solutions" proposed on these boards that reduce options under the premise that it will simplify the rating process, but reducing the number of options to rate someone won't reduce inflation. If anything you will increase inflation because less options means greater differences in promotion scores and with that greater pressure on supervisors to just give their Airman a rating higher than deserved.

If we want to seriously reduce inflation, it may have to cost us. I think we should look at bringing promotion boards to the Air Force as a viable alternative to the EPR in the WAPS system.

[BadBender]

I have not been in as long as some people here but I have been a member (of AF Times) since 2002! I remember the Commandant of my ALS school at Langley saying the EPR system is perfect, until you add people. I believe that holds true. I had two troops, one was iffy, and he got a 4 on his first EPR from me and he mended his ways to get a five on the next. He is a great troop and I hope to serve with him again. The other troop I had was a 2 or low 3. He messed up on many jobs. He is a good Man but not Air Force Material. I have tried to rate my troops correctly and have had support for my decisions. What pissed me off was when my first troop was about to PCS. I put him up for an Achievement Medal. The regulation does not mention EPRs and what not. This man had just completed a ILO tasking and did Great! I submitted his package, talked to whom ever was in charge and was shot down because he got a “4” on his first EPR! I lost much respect for the senior leaders then. My troop, rather my former troop is still in and serving our country. I hope he is judged well.

[CrustySMSgt]

instead of using the accomplishment/result/impact bullet format most of us use today, i really wish we could go back to writing EPRs in this style, which was taken off my very first EPR in 1993. to me, writing this way was a lot simpler and took much LESS time to do.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/424/1eprfh2.jpg

how many of us waste untold man hours searching for the right words so that the bullet will 'quantify' the accomplishment or 'have a bigger impact' AND take up as much space on the line as possible? every time i hear the word 'quantify' or statements like 'well, we need to show the kinds of things the Amn/NCO/SNCO/Sqdn or whatever other kinds of awards boards are looking for' on the EPR" makes me want to just grab somebody and punch them. who gives a fuck? i'm so sick of this shit. i say the inflation is in the writing as well as the ratings.

and lets be honest, how many people really need to review' the EPR before it can 'go final'? in my squadron the review process looks like this, flight chief, flight commander, CSS, section commander, 1st shirt, DOE, SEM, CEM, vice commander, and finally the CC. a routing process that consists of 10 people folks. that is ridiculous! since most of us are in jobs that are way undermanned / overworked as it is and along with all the other bullshit 'taskings' we get handed out to us i.e., whatever the CBT of the week is, no wonder most squadrons start the process 2 months or more from closeout date. it takes that long for everyone to 'get eyes on it', and most of the time the closeout suspense is still busted. grrrrrrrrr...............

So, tell us how you really feel.. don't hold back :rolleyes:

Are you seriously advocating we go back to rambling on? Your APR uses 6 lines to say you volunteered for Special Olympics and played softball!! So for an entire year rating period, 3 lines are spent on 2 days of volunteering? If we're trying to distinguish who is doing great things and who is punching the clock, this is definiteyl not the way to do it? We are much busier than we were when this style of writing was the norm. I agree there are often too many hoops to jump through, and trying to abide by all the acronym & abbreviation lists sucks... but as someone who has seen a lot of EPRs, 1206s, and Decs, I can assure you, there are a WHOLE LOT of supervisors out there that either don't care enough to try, or just plain SUCK at writing! Unfortunately, too many of them make it to the SNCO ranks and just make the review process worse.

[CrustySMSgt]

The 1 - 5 rating needs to go for sure...

Something all those lines... Weapons scores should also affect promotion points, PT scores should affect promotion points, and other tangible items.

It doesn't matter if the ratings are 105, 1-9, or 1-23519... as long as a person is picking the number with no oversight, they'll inflate it.

I wouldn't mind seeing some more objective standards introduced to the system... but with folks going years without firing, that would be a hard elemnt to add. I agree PT should be factored... not by raw score, but similar to decs... adding 3-5 points for an excellent score. Enough to be a perk for someone who might be close but needs that little bit of incentive to be excellent... but not enough to seriously impact those of us who will NEVER have a 32" waist.

[Measure Man]

It doesn't matter if the ratings are 105, 1-9, or 1-23519... as long as a person is picking the number with no oversight, they'll inflate it.

I wouldn't mind seeing some more objective standards introduced to the system... but with folks going years without firing, that would be a hard elemnt to add. I agree PT should be factored... not by raw score, but similar to decs... adding 3-5 points for an excellent score. Enough to be a perk for someone who might be close but needs that little bit of incentive to be excellent... but not enough to seriously impact those of us who will NEVER have a 32" waist.

I understand the logic of the objective PT score...

The reason it was decided NOT to do that...was the AF wanted to prevent that 43 yr old SMSgt who was bucking for Chief...from having a heart attack and dying trying to stretch his 89 into a 90 for that 1 promotion point....but I suppose it is just as likely, if not moreso, that someone would have a heart attack stretching their 74 into a 75 to avoid derailing their career.

I think the emphasis on PT is a little overboard right now...maybe making pts for score would help alleviate that (no one marks you down on your EPR in "job knowledge" for scoring poorly on your SKT...actually I had a commander who threatened to do that, not sure if he ever did)

[CrustySMSgt]

So what do we do? How do we create an objective rating (or more objective) that is tamper proof, verifiable, and fair? personally I would make the following changes:

3) Eliminate the 1-5 rating. 2 blocks, don't promote and promote. Don't promote gets 100 points on WAPS, Promote gets 135. So even if your rating chain "screws" you, you can still test out and get promoted.

4) Eliminate all but 3 lines of bullets. The rater has 3 lines to justify the don't promote block rating, otherwise leave it blank.

5) member, rater's rater, and unit commander get concur/non-concur blocks, no more senior endorsement
6) EPR kicks out for review if 2 of 3 non-concur with raters marks


Some good inputs.


3) Still no method of controlling inflation. If we can't convince supervisors to knock someone down 1 rating on a 1-5 scale, with a 4 stating "above average."; do you really think they'll do the right thing and DNP somone? That is how the "O"s do it, and a DNP is a death sentence. If they don't have the balls to look their Airman in the eye and say you are "only" above average, how can they be expected to say you shouldn't be promoted?

4) COncur for SSgt - below. Writing 21 bullets is a waste of time. Would have to be the other way around, justifying Promote... because anything said to justify a DNP could be seen as negative comment, making it a referal report.

5) Member agreement shouldn't be a factor.. especially when considering #6! We've come a long way... my first APRs had 4 levels of endorsement... as an E-2! :eek:
When you get up to competing for SMSgt & CMSgt, there has to be a larger scope put to rating... it has to compare eligibles across the base, and how they stand among their peers. These are individuals being recommended for progression from operating at the tactical level to the operational and strategic level. Just because they are capable at the Sq level, if they are not demonstrating capability to lead/manage on a larger scale, then that should be considered. You can't do that from the unit level, it has to come from above.

6) I think the non-concur procedures as they are make sense. If someone disagrees with the rater, they can non-concur. Making it a simple "vote" oversimplifies it, and I think would take more control out of raters' hands. I know it is a double edged sword, but if you make it too easy to disgree with the rater, who should know the person the best, it is easy to just say no. If you make it just a bit harder, it will only be used when those who are pushing the non-concur really feel strongly about the disagreement... but you lose the ability to use it as a tool to curb inflation.

Also, if the EPR isn't considered if thrown out, what is?

[CrustySMSgt]

I think the emphasis on PT is a little overboard right now...maybe making pts for score would help alleviate that (no one marks you down on your EPR in "job knowledge" for scoring poorly on your SKT...actually I had a commander who threatened to do that, not sure if he ever did)

I can personally say I'd try harder if it really mattered. I'd have to work pretty hard to get over a 90, but if I thought it would get me a couple points, I'd put in the time & effort to do it. But when I can work reasonably hard and get a low-80, I'm good with that.

[imnohero]

Still no method of controlling inflation. If we can't convince supervisors to knock someone down 1 rating on a 1-5 scale, with a 4 stating "above average."; do you really think they'll do the right thing and DNP somone? That is how the "O"s do it, and a DNP is a death sentence. If they don't have the balls to look their Airman in the eye and say you are "only" above average, how can they be expected to say you shouldn't be promoted?

A fair point. The only way to completely eliminate this problem is to disassociate performance rating with WAPS. Which I don't think is the way to go.

But it brings up an interesting question...how do we keep people from competing for promotion, or getting promoted, that shouldn't be? Whether it's because they aren't ready or due to bad conduct. Is the performance report really the correct mechanism for this or should there be changes elsewhere in the system?

Widening the picture a bit, I honestly think the entire WAPS needs to be reviewed and overhauled. One of the problems is we have a dynamic operational environment, with a static/rigid personnel system...I'm not a personnel/manpower expert, so I don't know what the fix is or if it can be fixed at all.

[Q1Checkride]

So, tell us how you really feel.. don't hold back :rolleyes:

Are you seriously advocating we go back to rambling on? Your APR uses 6 lines to say you volunteered for Special Olympics and played softball!! So for an entire year rating period, 3 lines are spent on 2 days of volunteering? If we're trying to distinguish who is doing great things and who is punching the clock, this is definiteyl not the way to do it? We are much busier than we were when this style of writing was the norm. I agree there are often too many hoops to jump through, and trying to abide by all the acronym & abbreviation lists sucks... but as someone who has seen a lot of EPRs, 1206s, and Decs, I can assure you, there are a WHOLE LOT of supervisors out there that either don't care enough to try, or just plain SUCK at writing! Unfortunately, too many of them make it to the SNCO ranks and just make the review process worse.

seriously? no. i'm not advocating going back to 'rambling on'. what i am advocating is just simply writing out out what someone did in a complete sentence, thats all. if it takes 2 lines, it takes 2 lines. the accomplishment/result/impact bullet format tends to do things like this, making something as simple as say an airman helping out with off loading a couple of dozen boxes of MRE's off a truck into this kind of OVER INFLATED crap, - Led five mbr team off loading 200 boxes of MREs, allowed uninterrupted food supply continuance; 200K refugees fed.

gotta quantify that bullet, make it have an impact that can be measured at the sqdn, group,wing or base level. this little A1Cs initial EPR needs to reflect his ability to lead cause he might want to be a chief someday and this will look good for the board and blah blah blah.......whatever. meanwhile an NCO i could use elsewhere is stuck in front of a cpu for the better part of a duty day pimping this EPR out. making sure the "approved" acronyms are used cause if he ever goes up for a board the maintenance guy reading it may not know what a JTAC is, or trying to fit the bullet into the line because y'know you gotta spell out the number in word format if its less than 10. i think the accomplishment/result/impact bullet format advocates turning a mole hill into a mountain. just my .02.

btw, how is yokota? i bet its changed a lot since i was there in 92-94.

[CrustySMSgt]

seriously? no. i'm not advocating going back to 'rambling on'. what i am advocating is just simply writing out out what someone did in a complete sentence, thats all. if it takes 2 lines, it takes 2 lines. the accomplishment/result/impact bullet format tends to do things like this, making something as simple as say an airman helping out with off loading a couple of dozen boxes of MRE's off a truck into this kind of OVER INFLATED crap, - Led five mbr team off loading 200 boxes of MREs, allowed uninterrupted food supply continuance; 200K refugees fed.

gotta quantify that bullet, make it have an impact that can be measured at the sqdn, group,wing or base level. this little A1Cs initial EPR needs to reflect his ability to lead cause he might want to be a chief someday and this will look good for the board and blah blah blah.......whatever. meanwhile an NCO i could use elsewhere is stuck in front of a cpu for the better part of a duty day pimping this EPR out. making sure the "approved" acronyms are used cause if he ever goes up for a board the maintenance guy reading it may not know what a JTAC is, or trying to fit the bullet into the line because y'know you gotta spell out the number in word format if its less than 10. i think the accomplishment/result/impact bullet format advocates turning a mole hill into a mountain. just my .02.

btw, how is yokota? i bet its changed a lot since i was there in 92-94.

Yokota is good; probably a lot different... lol
The Special Olympics bullet in your EPR cracked me up... still have them in almost every EPR I see here.

I will concede too much time is spent trying to fit right and meet rediculous standards of brevity. Having to spell out some acronyms takes nearly a line alone, much less adding any action to it. In trying to fix the rambling problem, we've gone too far the other way, going from 3-4 lines to say one thing, to a bullet & a sub bullet, to jamming everything into one line... I'm all for getting maximum use out of the available space, but I will agree you can only do so much with one line.

And I will also agree we work to hard to glorify "just doing your job." Your bullet above is a very good example. But that is part of the inflation process... you can't be truly among the best if you don't save the world every day... God forbid you just show up & do what you're told. If ratings were more accurate, then the verbiage would match... on the rare occasion a 3-4 comes across my desk now, I definitely spend less time polishing it. Or when a weak 5 comes across, there are always those "read between the lines" stuff you can work in that send a clear message. "ready for increased responsibility" is one of those generic things that sounds good, but has become a flag that means just the opposite.

I also agree, too much time is spent on EPRs that the bullets don't matter. SMSgt promotion boards go back 10 years... so they might get into SSgt EPRs, but is going back that far really that important? I'm all for a sustained record of outstanding performance, but does what a MSgt did as a SSgt 10 years ago really that telling? While I know it would not give the board too much to look at for fast burners, but maybe just looking at their TSgt & up EPRs would allow for putting less effort into SSgt & below EPRs. Plug in ratings, throw in 3(?) bullets and move on!

[imnohero]

You want to talk subjective, SNCO board is it. I was talking to my super at my last unit about it, he was telling me that his first eligible year he got a 380 board score. The next year, with the only change to his record going to the board, was one more 5 EPR on top, his score was 425. The next year, his record added another 5 EPR on top and a commendation medal for a deployment, his score was 402 and he got promoted.

Trying to decipher what one needs to do to get promoted to E8 is a futile effort.

In my current squadron, only the top 10% get senior rater endorsement. They've established a whole board process inside the squadron to rank order the SNCOs. Of the 20 MSgt competing for promotion, 19 have CCAF, PME, All firewall 5s, etc. They are having to decide strats based on whether one guys community service outweighs someone elses, or if this guy took a harder college class then that guy for the same number of credits.

Ridiculous, if you ask me.

[CrustySMSgt]

You want to talk subjective, SNCO board is it. I was talking to my super at my last unit about it, he was telling me that his first eligible year he got a 380 board score. The next year, with the only change to his record going to the board, was one more 5 EPR on top, his score was 425. The next year, his record added another 5 EPR on top and a commendation medal for a deployment, his score was 402 and he got promoted.

Trying to decipher what one needs to do to get promoted to E8 is a futile effort.

In my current squadron, only the top 10% get senior rater endorsement. They've established a whole board process inside the squadron to rank order the SNCOs. Of the 20 MSgt competing for promotion, 19 have CCAF, PME, All firewall 5s, etc. They are having to decide strats based on whether one guys community service outweighs someone elses, or if this guy took a harder college class then that guy for the same number of credits.

Ridiculous, if you ask me.


A 425 and he didn't get promoted?!? I know the board score curve varies each year, but I find it VERY difficult to beleive a MSgt testing for SMSgt for the second time got a 425 (would actually have to be 420, or 427.5) board score and didn't get promoted. IF it is true, I'd be interested to know what his test score was... would have to be below 50, assuming he's got all 5s, and is average on decs. OK, I looked at the 06E8 results, and using the AF average for selects (20.22 yr TIS, 4.42 Yr TIG, 20.82 Decs, 661.37 total score) Using these averages, and a 420 board score, he would have had to score less than a 32 on the test.
My BS meter is pegged... :rolleyes: I'd be happy to do more calculating with more details (year, AFSC...)

For the most part, stratification really isn' that hard; especially at the unit level. You've got to have a lot of shit hot MSgts to be getting down to comparing college classes... something I've never heard of being considered. Sounds like rationalization from those not making the cut.

[Rastaman]

You want to talk subjective, SNCO board is it. I was talking to my super at my last unit about it, he was telling me that his first eligible year he got a 380 board score. The next year, with the only change to his record going to the board, was one more 5 EPR on top, his score was 425. The next year, his record added another 5 EPR on top and a commendation medal for a deployment, his score was 402 and he got promoted.

Trying to decipher what one needs to do to get promoted to E8 is a futile effort.

In my current squadron, only the top 10% get senior rater endorsement. They've established a whole board process inside the squadron to rank order the SNCOs. Of the 20 MSgt competing for promotion, 19 have CCAF, PME, All firewall 5s, etc. They are having to decide strats based on whether one guys community service outweighs someone elses, or if this guy took a harder college class then that guy for the same number of credits.
Ridiculous, if you ask me.

Wow. Maybe they should go back and look again at the job performance/leadership ability/breadth of experience and knowledge since that is really what seperates SMSgts/CMSgts from MSgts...then again I could be wrong and maybe it really is more important who earned more $$$ for the Top 3/baked and sold the most cookies/volunteered at the Special Olympics, etc. :eek:

[CrustySMSgt]

Wow. Maybe they should go back and look again at the job performance/leadership ability/breadth of experience and knowledge since that is really what seperates SMSgts/CMSgts from MSgts...then again I could be wrong and maybe it really is more important who earned more $$$ for the Top 3/baked and sold the most cookies/volunteered at the Special Olympics, etc. :eek:

Indeed... I WISH I had to get that far into the weeds to discriminate between my top MSgts... oh to ever be so lucky!

[Cornbreadrules]

How is a system that has 20 people reviewing it become inflated? I guess they arent reading the markings, but only sending it back for typo's and rewrite of bullet statements! Over and over and over............!

[imnohero]

Well, I can only tell you what he told me, regarding the board scores. But you can't really compare year to year, which is the whole point, every year what the board considers "valuable" changes. And how they weigh the stuff in your record changes every year because different people make up the board every year.

But total promotion score is relative anyway, since the cutoff score is determined by how many people get promoted. Everybody tests, they put everyone in a descending score list and if the AF needs 20 new MSgt in that AFSC, they count 20 down the list and that's the cutoff. So if everyone scores high, then the cutoff is high. Shoot, when I made MSgt, my promotion score was like 340-something, when I made TSgt is was 360-something.


sounds like a rationalization from those not making the cut

You're right, it does. Except it came from the Chief working the strats, when I asked him.

[CrustySMSgt]

Well, I can only tell you what he told me, regarding the board scores. But you can't really compare year to year, which is the whole point, every year what the board considers "valuable" changes. And how they weigh the stuff in your record changes every year because different people make up the board every year.

But total promotion score is relative anyway, since the cutoff score is determined by how many people get promoted. Everybody tests, they put everyone in a descending score list and if the AF needs 20 new MSgt in that AFSC, they count 20 down the list and that's the cutoff. So if everyone scores high, then the cutoff is high. Shoot, when I made MSgt, my promotion score was like 340-something, when I made TSgt is was 360-something.

You're right, it does. Except it came from the Chief working the strats, when I asked him.

I know how the system works... the great thing about the board is, there are checks & balances to ensure perosnal agendas don't have too much affect. If there is a 1 point difference, the record is rescored... so they are all at least pretty much on the same sheet of music, evaluating each record on similar factors. So while the board scores as a whole are relative, they are all scored on the same standard.

I'll stick to my statement on your units strat policy... if they are actually looking at what classes the MSgts took and using that to rank them, you've either got 19 shit-hot MSgts, or your unit is wandering around in left field, looking in the wrong direction.

[VFFSSGT]

It doesn't matter if the ratings are 105, 1-9, or 1-23519... as long as a person is picking the number with no oversight, they'll inflate it.

I wouldn't mind seeing some more objective standards introduced to the system... but with folks going years without firing, that would be a hard elemnt to add. I agree PT should be factored... not by raw score, but similar to decs... adding 3-5 points for an excellent score. Enough to be a perk for someone who might be close but needs that little bit of incentive to be excellent... but not enough to seriously impact those of us who will NEVER have a 32" waist.

Here is my theory to the madness... 1-5 rating scale is corrupt as we all know and anything below a 5 has too much negative stigma. The 5 rating is the norm as we all know and having a "low," "average," or "firewall" 5 makes no difference. The 5 is still a 5 and gets you the same points toward promotion, so you can be a useless 5 or an outstanding 5 and still have the same shot at promotion. The 5 scale really is opinion base and not very objective either. It depends on the personality of the leadership how many mark downs one has to have to have a 4 or whatever.

So, removing the 1-5 eliminates the negative stigma it has. The 5 scale system will NEVER function objectively. Use the front of the EPR like it is but have equal number bullet lines for each block for the sole purpose of highlighting significant accomplishments or lack thereof. Providing a scoring basis for each section provides a little more objectivity to it.

I believe the PT score should be added it as it is. You make an 80, you get 80 points toward promotion, etc. (I am an 80's guy too...) If you slack a little in one area for whatever reason you should have to work a little harder in another area to make up for it. Everyone will never be good or best at everything… Everyone has their good and bad qualities. You suck at communicating you should get marked as such and have to make up for it elsewhere. If you suck at PT you should have to make up for it elsewhere.

Your shooting score should be added too, as it is. Some say this doesn’t matter because it does not relate to leadership and neither does PT. Well to be a leader you have to be able to do your job first. Your job entails being in shape and knowing how to use a weapon. Suck at shooting, you should have to make up for it somewhere else.

I also believe you should have to march a small flight and receive a score that is applied to your promotion points. This is the military!!!

I believe you should get points based on your education level too but this probably would never happen because it would send education spending through the roof.

This so called “fairness” or entitlement mindset as I refer to it is CROCK. You should have to work for it!!!

As long as we are human there will always be flaws in any system. You can make it more objective through various means as I believe we all agree.

[Q1Checkride]

Yokota is good; probably a lot different... lol
The Special Olympics bullet in your EPR cracked me up... still have them in almost every EPR I see here.

I will concede too much time is spent trying to fit right and meet rediculous standards of brevity. Having to spell out some acronyms takes nearly a line alone, much less adding any action to it. In trying to fix the rambling problem, we've gone too far the other way, going from 3-4 lines to say one thing, to a bullet & a sub bullet, to jamming everything into one line... I'm all for getting maximum use out of the available space, but I will agree you can only do so much with one line.

And I will also agree we work to hard to glorify "just doing your job." Your bullet above is a very good example. But that is part of the inflation process... you can't be truly among the best if you don't save the world every day... God forbid you just show up & do what you're told. If ratings were more accurate, then the verbiage would match... on the rare occasion a 3-4 comes across my desk now, I definitely spend less time polishing it. Or when a weak 5 comes across, there are always those "read between the lines" stuff you can work in that send a clear message. "ready for increased responsibility" is one of those generic things that sounds good, but has become a flag that means just the opposite.

I also agree, too much time is spent on EPRs that the bullets don't matter. SMSgt promotion boards go back 10 years... so they might get into SSgt EPRs, but is going back that far really that important? I'm all for a sustained record of outstanding performance, but does what a MSgt did as a SSgt 10 years ago really that telling? While I know it would not give the board too much to look at for fast burners, but maybe just looking at their TSgt & up EPRs would allow for putting less effort into SSgt & below EPRs. Plug in ratings, throw in 3(?) bullets and move on!

thanks for conceding and agreeing to some of my points. i likewise concede that a lot of the points you have made in this thread are valid as well.

instead of me wasting away the majority of the day in front of a computer screen trying to get EPR bullets to in your words, "fit right and meet ridiculous standards of brevity" AND "work to hard to glorify "just doing your job." AND "too much time is spent on EPRs that the bullets don't matter."---guess what i would rather be doing instead? how about actually being able to sit with my troops that i supervise in the flight discussing our particular job related duties (flying) and teaching them how to do AND be the best at their job, or perhaps simply being 'available' to give them advice/guidance on anything that might be troubling them BEFORE it snowballs into a bigger issue.

i like this one, you said "ready for increased responsibility" is one of those generic things that sounds good, but has become a flag that means just the opposite.---means just the opposite? if a rater writes that, but really means the exact opposite.......isn't that sort of like, i don't know, LYING?

in keeping with the subject of why this thread was started to begin with, i wholeheartedly agree with

"But that is part of the inflation process... you can't be truly among the best if you don't save the world every day... God forbid you just show up & do what you're told. If ratings were more accurate, then the verbiage would match..."

[CrustySMSgt]

So, removing the 1-5 eliminates the negative stigma it has. The 5 scale system will NEVER function objectively. Use the front of the EPR like it is but have equal number bullet lines for each block for the sole purpose of highlighting significant accomplishments or lack thereof. Providing a scoring basis for each section provides a little more objectivity to it.



The same logic was used when switching from 9 to 5, and you see how far that got us...



I believe the PT score should be added it as it is. You make an 80, you get 80 points toward promotion, etc. (I am an 80's guy too...) If you slack a little in one area for whatever reason you should have to work a little harder in another area to make up for it. Everyone will never be good or best at everything… Everyone has their good and bad qualities. You suck at communicating you should get marked as such and have to make up for it elsewhere. If you suck at PT you should have to make up for it elsewhere.


I have thought the same thing... but do think that until all elements of the test make sense, it is a tough sell. While I'm all for military image, I think the fact that the waist measurement doesn't change with age doesn't make sense. I know there are very few people that have the same waist they did 5, 10, 15... years ago. While I understand the association between the risk of medical issues and a large waist, attempts to directly apply that to a FITNESS evaluation don't wash. I am running faster now than I did 10 years ago, but my waist is 1.5" bigger. Does that mean I am less fit? Less capable of accomplishing my mission? It is the only element of the evaluation that doesn't change with age.


Your shooting score should be added it too, as it is. Some say this doesn’t matter because it does not relate to leadership and neither does PT. Well to be a leader you have to be able to do your job first. Your job entails being in shape and knowing how to use a weapon. Suck at shooting, you should have to make up for it somewhere else. Seriously?!? :confused: I know of very few Airmen who handle a weapon routinely as part of their job. We just had a TSgt leave here that who hadn't fired (post basic training) in her 12 year career. (don't ask me how that happened, I don't know :confused: ). I think this is an example of "warrior ethos" gone bad!!
And to clear up it isn't a personal issue, I have fired expert on the M-9 & M-16 (not to mention the shotgun & .38 too) pretty much every time for the last 23 years, so it would certainly benefit me!


I also believe you should have to march a small flight and receive a score that is applied to your promotion points. This is the military!!! WHAT?!?!? :confused:
With everyone bitching about not having time to do their jobs because they are inundated with CBTs, breifings, PT, surveys and all that, you are actually advocating dedicating time to maintaining the ability to drill a flight?!? :eek:

[VFFSSGT]

I wasn't around for the 9 but I have heard all the stories on both...that is why I say do away with the rating scale. Base the score on the individual areas....

Yes, the PT Program needs serious modifications, I won't argue there... But, whatever system we have, it should affect promotion score. When it does, people will be more motivated to improve. Like I said, I'm an 80's guy and have been consistent since this program was implented. I also have the smaller waist... I love running into burning buildings but hate running. I have no motivation to improve my score.

Well, I believe we all should be routinely trained on the weapon, especially in the warrior mindset Air Force. And, they have a familiarization CBT for the M-16 and M-9 so.... :rolleyes: If it affects promotion I bet someone won't go 12 years without shooting again. This is the military and part of that is being able to defend one's self, assets, etc if need be - you should be able to effectively use a weapon. People haven't been effectively trained in the arms and we send them into war zones. No wonder they come back with "PTSD" when they hear gunfire or an explosion... Maybe if they were trained like they were in a military someone would have realized they cannot handle it. Or maybe many would not have the problems they have if they were trained effectively.

I like the expressions....lol Well, some of the CBT's need to go (You can only learn so much from the same CBT year after year after year), surveys definitely need to be reduced, and I believe too much duty time is dedicated to PT. Drilling a flight is one of the most basics of the military and I believe would instill some of the "military" back in the military. Drilling a flight is not that difficult, IMO, but it is amazing how many can't even do a simple facing movement after receiving an award... When I went through ALS there were many who could not drill, but no real attempt was made to improve those people. They were carried right along through the course and essentially given a pass on drill.

[Okie]

And I always thought the reason OPR/EPR inflation would never stop is the "we're all winners" mentality.

[sigecaps]

Here's my response to the "it's your job to be in shape therefore we should put PT scores on the EPR." Ok I agree it is our job to be in shape. Those who aren't doing their job (of being in shape) can be held accountable on their EPRs because we've always had an "adhered to standards" block, and now the PT block is explicitly stated. The part that I disagree is "put PT scores on the EPR". How can you say someone who scores a 90 (especially with the subjective measurement of "fitness" that our PT tests measure) is more worthy of a promotion than someone who scores an 80? And now you want to add weapon scores and drill evaluations? Are you serious?! What's next you want to add a block to see who can tie a square knot the fastest? You are in the wrong branch of service.

[VFFSSGT]

You obviously did not read my posts in their entirety. If you suck at PT then you should have to work harder in other areas to get promoted. You are not entitled to anything and I am sorry if its jut not fair for you. Come up with ideas instead of whine and complain about them...

No, I am not in the wrong branch of service. The Air Force is part of the military; the problem with the Air Force is it has not been treated as such.

[sigecaps]

No, I am not in the wrong branch of service. The Air Force is part of the military; the problem with the Air Force is it has not been treated as such.

Yes you are. You need to do a cost benefit analysis to see how much the air force will benefit from having all members trained annually on weapons vice how much it will cost us to do this training. The same goes for PT. I'd wager a month's pay to say because 90% of our job is done inside the wire, the Air Force will lose big time with your groundpounder training mentality. That is not to say we should all abandon our PT and weapons training, but I think raising the standards is asinine at this point. Those who do outside the wire ops routinely should be trained to a higher standard, and measured against this standard when it comes to performance review; and you can leave everyone else out of it.

[VFFSSGT]

I did a cost benefit analysis of your whining and verdict has it you will no longer receive a paycheck. :D

What exactly would you base promotion on?

[LogDog_guest]

I wasn't around for the 9 but I have heard all the stories on both...that is why I say do away with the rating scale. Base the score on the individual areas....
I was around for both the 9 rating and the 5 rating on the EPR and I thought then the EPR system was broke and not doing it's job. My thinking on the matter was to keep the ratings but don't include the score in the WAPS as part of the promotion system. Keep it as part of the Personnel Record and prior to testing the Squadron Commander and First Sergeant should review each Personnel Record and recent EPRs and determine if the individual should be allowed to test. When promotion results are delivered to the Squadron Commander he and the First Sergeant would have to re-review the individual's Personnel Record )which is normal practice) to ensure nothing new has happened to prevent the person from receiving their stripe. If there is nothing then the person can be promoted and if there is something negative then they can be denied promotion.


Yes, the PT Program needs serious modifications, I won't argue there... But, whatever system we have, it should affect promotion score. When it does, people will be more motivated to improve. Like I said, I'm an 80's guy and have been consistent since this program was implented. I also have the smaller waist... I love running into burning buildings but hate running. I have no motivation to improve my score.
I was never under the current PT Program and I never failed an aerobics test (running/stationary cycle). I played sports throughout my entire career and my weight was normally 5 - 10 pounds under the maximum and my waist remained a constant size 36. The PT scores should not be part of the EPR but be in the Personnel Record because it really doesn't tell how effect or knowledgeable you are in your job.


Well, I believe we all should be routinely trained on the weapon, especially in the warrior mindset Air Force. And, they have a familiarization CBT for the M-16 and M-9 so.... :rolleyes: If it affects promotion I bet someone won't go 12 years without shooting again. This is the military and part of that is being able to defend one's self, assets, etc if need be - you should be able to effectively use a weapon. People haven't been effectively trained in the arms and we send them into war zones. No wonder they come back with "PTSD" when they hear gunfire or an explosion... Maybe if they were trained like they were in a military someone would have realized they cannot handle it. Or maybe many would not have the problems they have if they were trained effectively.
I agree that AF personnel need more hands-on training and use of the various weapons they would be expected to use if they were deployed.


I like the expressions....lol Well, some of the CBT's need to go (You can only learn so much from the same CBT year after year after year), surveys definitely need to be reduced, and I believe too much duty time is dedicated to PT. Drilling a flight is one of the most basics of the military and I believe would instill some of the "military" back in the military. Drilling a flight is not that difficult, IMO, but it is amazing how many can't even do a simple facing movement after receiving an award... When I went through ALS there were many who could not drill, but no real attempt was made to improve those people. They were carried right along through the course and essentially given a pass on drill.
During my first enlistment back in the late 70s, a First Sergeant I knew felt that all units should drill at least monthly. At the time I disagreed but after a practice for an upcoming parade I understood what he was getting at and I too was in favor of it.

[CrustySMSgt]

I was around for both the 9 rating and the 5 rating on the EPR and I thought then the EPR system was broke and not doing it's job. My thinking on the matter was to keep the ratings but don't include the score in the WAPS as part of the promotion system. Keep it as part of the Personnel Record and prior to testing the Squadron Commander and First Sergeant should review each Personnel Record and recent EPRs and determine if the individual should be allowed to test. When promotion results are delivered to the Squadron Commander he and the First Sergeant would have to re-review the individual's Personnel Record )which is normal practice) to ensure nothing new has happened to prevent the person from receiving their stripe. If there is nothing then the person can be promoted and if there is something negative then they can be denied promotion.



Actual performance has to be factored into promotion, and levels of performance weighted. If you take performance reports out of WAPS, those who are book smart, but ain't got no running around sense will get promoted, and those who can do the job, but suck at testing will be held back. Even in a non-inflated system, those that test well currently have an advantage, with the testing portion of WAPS (up to MSgt and for those with SKT) is worth 200, while the EPR points are only worth 135.

And the rest of what you propose is already in place. The CC approves a promotion eligibility roster prior to testing, and then approves the monthly promotion roster as selects come up on promotion.

[VFFSSGT]

PT in itself may not make you a good leader or mean you know your job, but being physically fit is part of your job now. And what is promotion based on? Your job; knowledge and performance. PT is part of the job now and should affect promotion more so than it does. I suggest adding the full score to the points but there are other options too. I don't believe it is effective on the EPR in a fail/pass format like it is now, but we have discussed that in other forums...

[DeadGeneration]

but not enough to seriously impact those of us who will NEVER have a 32" waist.

I know I keep working out to gain that extra inch but I can't get away from this 31'' :mad:

Anyway, myself and 2 other Airmen came to our squadron about 2 months ago and it's pretty clear between all of us who is the "favorite". I don't see how it's a problem in our case because the one who does the most on-duty is also the one who does the most off-duty. It seems natural that it is that way.

[CrustySMSgt]

PT in itself may not make you a good leader or mean you know your job, but being physically fit is part of your job now. And what is promotion based on? Your job; knowledge and performance. PT is part of the job now and should affect promotion more so than it does. I suggest adding the full score to the points but there are other options too. I don't believe it is effective on the EPR in a fail/pass format like it is now, but we have discussed that in other forums...

I think it will eventually be the case. We're slowly getting there, but there are still bugs to be worked out. Adding the automatic referral EPR/OPR for non-current/poor fit was a pretty huge step in upping the degree of seriousness of the program. The PT program had little teeth before that, with no standardized enforcement, only the "suggestions" of the AFI. At least now there is a uniform standard that takes control out of the commanders who are too soft to be the bad guy, so those who have continually failed are now held accountable.

[sigecaps]

Being physically fit is part of your job, but Air Force regulations make it clear on where the Air Force stands on the relative importance of PT vis-a-vis you accomplishing the mission. We know this because AFI 10-248 states that commanders are required to allow three 90 minute sessions a week, BUT that this requirement is subject to mission requirements. We should still keep some sort of pass/fail standard because you don't want incredibly out of shape people in the military. But since 90% of our jobs don't require you to be any better than a 75, it would be an incredibly poor decision to elevate the importance of PT to that of actually accomplishing the mission.

[VFFSSGT]

Thank you for educating us on 10-248, as if none of us knew what it says... Guess what, the point of this thread is to discuss why EPR inflation will never stop, which has lead to ideas of how to reduce inflation. Bringing up new ideas and suggestions results in questioning the current system and regulations...

[sigecaps]

Thank you for educating us on 10-248, as if none of us knew what it says... Guess what, the point of this thread is to discuss why EPR inflation will never stop, which has lead to ideas of how to reduce inflation. Bringing up new ideas and suggestions results in questioning the current system and regulations...

I'm always happy to educate you VFFSGGT. :)

My own thoughts on how to stop EPR inflation were given on my first post in this thread which others have echoed, but I'll summarize it here for your convenience. We can't simply reduce rating options from five to three, and expect inflation to stop. It hasn't worked before, nor is there any intuitive reason to expect it to stop in the future. Nor should we mitigate the effects of inflation by increasing the significance of other blocks beyond their due in the Air Force (PT, weapons training, etc).

What we should do is look at promotion boards, and have the board score replace our EPR in the WAPS system. I think an outside agency that makes an assessment on our contributions to the mission will be the least likely agency to give us an "inflated" score. I'm not certain on what these boards would look like, but perhaps it might incorporate some of the following: looking at whatever documentation we have on record, as well as interviewing the prospective promotee, their supervisors, and a few randomly selected coworkers, etc.

The drawbacks of this system is that it's probably more manpower intensive to board someone than it is to write them an EPR. Now maybe it's too manpower intensive, and the Air Force just decided to say screw it we'll just live with the inflation. But if we want to see radical results, then we need a radical change, and I think the board system is the only radical change that will bring about the results that we want. Expecting inflation to stop because you make a plea to NCOs to make it stop is kind of like expecting teen pregnancy to go away because you taught them abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy.

[VFFSSGT]

I don't disagree with your primary suggestion, just your assessment of PT and Weapons involvement. The board idea is not all that bad except as you recognized the man hours it would take... I believe all of my suggestions suggest a radical change is needed...but if not; we, as I believe all, do agree on the fact that a radical change is needed.

[CrustySMSgt]

What we should do is look at promotion boards, and have the board score replace our EPR in the WAPS system. I think an outside agency that makes an assessment on our contributions to the mission will be the least likely agency to give us an "inflated" score. I'm not certain on what these boards would look like, but perhaps it might incorporate some of the following: looking at whatever documentation we have on record, as well as interviewing the prospective promotee, their supervisors, and a few randomly selected coworkers, etc.

The drawbacks of this system is that it's probably more manpower intensive to board someone than it is to write them an EPR. Now maybe it's too manpower intensive, and the Air Force just decided to say screw it we'll just live with the inflation. But if we want to see radical results, then we need a radical change, and I think the board system is the only radical change that will bring about the results that we want. Expecting inflation to stop because you make a plea to NCOs to make it stop is kind of like expecting teen pregnancy to go away because you taught them abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy.

I disagree on boarding everyone. Mostly for the reason you point out, the manpower involved to board every SrA would be a show stopper. Especially if you added interviewing anyone!

Your analogy of teen pregnancy is relevant... and I hope everyone takes it to heart. As a parent (supervisor), you shouldn't rely on "the system" to take care of your children (troops)... you should take care of them yourselves. Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and about screwing an average Airman. Give your Airman feedback, set high, but attainable standards for them, and hold them accountable. Stop "looking at everyon else's paper" and keep your eyes on your own. You are charged to rate your Airmen's PERFORMANCE against their peers, not against their EPR ratings. If, compared to their peers, they are average, then rate them accordingly. If everyone did that, "the system" would fix itself.

[sigecaps]

I disagree on boarding everyone. Mostly for the reason you point out, the manpower involved to board every SrA would be a show stopper. Especially if you added interviewing anyone!

I'm not sure how man-intensive the idea is, but I think it's at least worth a feasibility study to see if it is at all practical. If we need help on how to make it feasible we can ask the Army, because that is how all their NCOs are promoted. Through a board, and yes all prospective promotees (E-4 and up) are interviewed.


If, compared to their peers, they are average, then rate them accordingly. If everyone did that, "the system" would fix itself.

With respect Senior, your proposed solution is exactly the kind of thinking that I was trying to deter us from with the pregnancy analogy. These kinds of solutions only work in an ideal world. In an ideal world, only abstinence education would be necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need prisons or police men because everyone would police themselves. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need government to regulate business because they would always do the "right thing".

But at the end of the day we don't live in an ideal world, teenagers have sex, people commit crimes, businesses are corrupt, and supervisors don't rate their subordinates accordingly. This is a systemic problem that won't go away no matter how many times the Air Force offers their "if you only rated your subordinate accordingly" plea or makes superficial changes to the EPR form. If the Air Force wants to seriously tackle this they need to offer real world solutions, but as of yet they have left supervisors high and dry.

[CrustySMSgt]

With respect Senior, your proposed solution is exactly the kind of thinking that I was trying to deter us from with the pregnancy analogy. These kinds of solutions only work in an ideal world. In an ideal world, only abstinence education would be necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need prisons or police men because everyone would police themselves. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need government to regulate business because they would always do the "right thing".

But at the end of the day we don't live in an ideal world, teenagers have sex, people commit crimes, businesses are corrupt, and supervisors don't rate their subordinates accordingly. This is a systemic problem that won't go away no matter how many times the Air Force offers their "if you only rated your subordinate accordingly" plea or makes superficial changes to the EPR form. If the Air Force wants to seriously tackle this they need to offer real world solutions, but as of yet they have left supervisors high and dry.

No, we don't live in a perfect world... but if you us that as a reason to put your head in the sand, and jump on the "I'm giving my average Airman a firewall 5 because everyone else is" bandwagon, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. The one getting screwed is the AIr Force, not your average Airman.

Using your logic, we should all go commit crime and knock up a teenager, because everyone else is, so why should we all be any different. Going back to the previously referenced application of the "broken windows" theory... if we all did our own part to clean up that which we control, and work to spread that throughout your "community" then it will be come the norm. Sure, there will always be those who chose to deviate from the norm, just as there will always be criminals... but as I've said before, this isn't something that senior leadership is going to resolve... this has to be something we SNCOs, and NCOs in turn need to take control of and work to educate those below us on what is "the right thing" as well as educating those above us how our system differs from the OPR; that our system isn't a pass fail one, and it is OK to just be average.

This is something we need to take ownership of. It is something we need to let our Airmen know up front, in their initial feedback... that they will have to earn a firewall 5... and then give them the roadmap to get there. If they are an NCO, let them know they will be rated on how well they perform this task for those they supervise.

I refuse to jump on the band wagon, to stick my head in the sand, or run around crying, " the sky is falling." I expect the same from every other supervisor out there... We are responsible to ensure our subordinates are trained and prepared to replace us... and to do our part to ensure only those who demonstrate they are ready to accept that challenge get promoted.

[VFFSSGT]

Something I meant to ask you before...you obviously are in a better position to handle this than me but how do we, get the airmen with NCO stripes to "fall in line"? You obviously direct, but I can't go around directing those above me as much as it seems I do try sometimes... I have seen many try to give those below them what they deserve but essentially weren't allowed to do so... I think this is one of our biggest problems, we have too many Amn with NCO stripes.

[CrustySMSgt]

Something I meant to ask you before...you obviously are in a better position to handle this than me but how do we, get the airmen with NCO stripes to "fall in line"? You obviously direct, but I can't go around directing those above me as much as it seems I do try sometimes... I have seen many try to give those below them what they deserve but essentially weren't allowed to do so... I think this is one of our biggest problems, we have too many Amn with NCO stripes.


Just remember, no one can MAKE you change your ratings... or for that matter what you write in YOUR block of the EPR. But of course it is always wise to choose your battles... "happy to glad" changes aren't worth the fight, as are most of the tweaks to easily get it through the wickets with little resistance. But you should never allow anyone to change the intent or meaning of what you have written.

There are procedures in place for those further up in the rating chain to non-concur. Most often they are too lazy, or don't care enough to go through with threats to non-concur. Most often if you, the supervisor, who should know the ratee the best, can represent your case logically, and with proffesionalism, spelling out how you came to the ratings you gave, and assure them feedback was given, they wil most often back down. If the ratee wants to introduce their feedback to show there is a conflict with what they were told versus the ratings they gave, that is their right. That is why I always err on the side of being harder on my feedback than i am on the actual report. Set high (but attainable) standards and make them reach the mark. If they come close, demonstrate ability, show effort, then you can give them the benefit of the doubt on the EPR... and use that in your follow-up feedback after the report. If you show how they came close, but you recongized their efforts... they will trust you and work harder for you... as long as they know your standards are high and don't see it as a sign of weakness.

I changed a rating once based on pressure I got and had to face my troop and explain what happened. I will remember that feeling for the rest of my career... and have never gone against what I beleived again. IF you are doing the right thing and giving feedback, then the rating your troop earns should never be a surprise. IF you bow to pressure and come out of left field with a changed rating based on pressure from above, you have violated the trust of your troop.

Having said that, it is in your best interest to stay in tune with what your supervisor expects of you and take advantage of your feedbacks with them to bounce your approach off them to see how they feel you are doing. Also seek the advice of a mentor. Never think you know it all or are too smart to learn from others. Constantly work to grow and learn and apply what you have learned to being a supervisor.

[sigecaps]

No, we don't live in a perfect world... but if you us that as a reason to put your head in the sand, and jump on the "I'm giving my average Airman a firewall 5 because everyone else is" bandwagon, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. The one getting screwed is the AIr Force, not your average Airman.

To be clear I am not saying that we should throw our hands up and just start sending every Airman through with a firewall five. Trust me, I'm a product of the system. I received two four EPRs before my staff test and still made staff on the first try. It is not that I'm a bad Airman, it's just that my supervisor was honest and I was not among the best of the best. We had really shit hot Airmen in our squadron. And I didn't care to compete with them in the community service and college class categories (I did do these things, just nothing that really stood out like a lot of my peers did). And the whole stigma of a four is appalling as well. I had a really decent package, and I'm not a dirt bag Airman, I graduated from Tech School with DG, got the Academic Award and DG at ALS, but because my supervisor was honest two EPRs in a row, I was turned down for a PCS medal as well as a special duty assignment. How does the Air Force expect supervisors to believe that giving their Airmen a four ought to be considered a favorable EPR when the Air Force treats fours with such disdain?

Again let me be clear I'm not against supervisors rating their Airmen fairly. What I am against is the Air Force having a double standard for saying that Airmen should be rated fairly and says "but fours are good ratings, and three should be the average", but then view threes and fours like they are scum of the earth. And I'm against the Air Force throwing up their hands unwilling to fix the systemic problem with the non-solution that "supervisors just need to rate people fairly" and this problem will go away. So long as the Air Force continues to pin their hopes of ending EPR inflation on supervisors doing the right thing this problem will never go away.

[imnohero]

sig just identified part of the larger problem. It's all good to "rate people accordingly" but when the unit or base Command Chief has an unwritten rule that anything less than perfect firewall 5s is automatic disapproval of awards....

An unwritten policy that directly contradicts the awards AFI by the way. Which raises the question of integrity with leadership.

Crusty, your right, leadership can't fix this problem...they are the problem.

[CrustySMSgt]

sig just identified part of the larger problem. It's all good to "rate people accordingly" but when the unit or base Command Chief has an unwritten rule that anything less than perfect firewall 5s is automatic disapproval of awards....

And unwritten policy that directly contradicts the awards AFI by the way. Which raises the question of integrity with leadership.

Crusty, your right, leadership can't fix this problem...they are the problem.

I will agree that EPRs are too closely related to the dec approval process... but understand something has to be used to weigh the accomplishments used to justify a decoration. Dec shouldn't be a given and everyone shouldn't get them for just serving their tour.

[imnohero]

Crusty, I agree. Not everyone should get them. Nor should EPRs be tied so closely with them. But that is the double standard we are dealing with daily and part of the reason why inflation won't stop just because CMSAF says to rate with integrity. You know I actually laughed out loud when I read that thing...as if a command from on high that essentially says "do as I say, not as a I do", is going to change anything.

[VFFSSGT]

I will agree that EPRs are too closely related to the dec approval process... but understand something has to be used to weigh the accomplishments used to justify a decoration. Dec shouldn't be a given and everyone shouldn't get them for just serving their tour.


Isn't the accomplishment(s) in itself suppose to be the weight to justify the decoration? So what if an airmen got a 4 or 5... A 4 airmen can cover a grenade with his body to save personnel just as well as a 5 airmen. Now, bring that down to the lower levels of accomplishments and the same principle applies. Everyone getting decs for every assignment and/or tour corrupts the decoration process just as the awards program is corrupt along with the EPR system.

I would argue at least 80% of the decorations given aren't truly deserved... They are often given for simply doing your job, you know - what you are paid to do.

[Vince]

Just to chime in about unwritten policy's about EPR strings and dec's: I couldn't get so much as an Achievement medal with 5-5-4 for three years....

Granted a four, and I can admit it, makes you go hmmmm...what a screw up.

[FedUp]

If the ratee wants to introduce their feedback to show there is a conflict with what they were told versus the ratings they gave, that is their right. That is why I always err on the side of being harder on my feedback than i am on the actual report. Set high (but attainable) standards and make them reach the mark. If they come close, demonstrate ability, show effort, then you can give them the benefit of the doubt on the EPR... and use that in your follow-up feedback after the report. If you show how they came close, but you recongized their efforts... they will trust you and work harder for you... as long as they know your standards are high and don't see it as a sign of weakness.
.

Say there was no feedback given, no initial, no midterm, no feedback given when one was requested!! There was a pencil whipped feedback, what can someone to fight the EPR? The EPR is still unsigned by the ratee under the "is not to disput the rating but to sign saying a feedback was given". What can be done?

[CrustySMSgt]

Say there was no feedback given, no initial, no midterm, no feedback given when one was requested!! There was a pencil whipped feedback, what can someone to fight the EPR? The EPR is still unsigned by the ratee under the "is not to disput the rating but to sign saying a feedback was given". What can be done?

Nothing... lack of feedback is not justification to "fight" an EPR. Not sure what you mean be a "pencil whipped feedback." Are you saying the rater falsified the date on the EPR, or falsified a feedback form.

I'd recommend the ratee go to the 1st Sgt or the Squadron Supt and explain why they aren't signing the EPR and ask that the supervisor produce the signed feedback they did on XX date.

THis is a huge part of the firewall 5 issue... supervisors don't do feedback, and then are "stuck" giving a firewall, because they know they'll be in deep doo-doo if they mark their troop down and get called on it...even more of an issue now that the ratee has to sign the form with the above statement. Kind of like the PT meets/does not meet... this sends a message to supervisors that not doing feedback will not be tolerated... and those who supervise the suervisors need to start holding the supervisors accountable for not living up to their responsibilities.

[horse]

Not giving a feedback is no grounds to force a supervisor to give a firewall 5--won't happen. I have told a few squadron superintendents and CCs I would not change my rating nor force the immediate rater to change a rating because a feedback wasn't done. The only time a feedback can cause an EPR to be contested is if it is less than a 4 (MPF will send the person away). I haven't met a CC yet who has the balls to non-concur and fill out the AF Form 77. I have even been threatened with the, "this will reflect on your EPR because you didn't follow the rules or failed to enforce the standards." Who gives a shit? My job is to ensure the proper rating is reflected on the report--I don't care about pretty little forms being filled out.

[CrustySMSgt]

Not giving a feedback is no grounds to force a supervisor to give a firewall 5--won't happen. I have told a few squadron superintendents and CCs I would not change my rating nor force the immediate rater to change a rating because a feedback wasn't done. The only time a feedback can cause an EPR to be contested is if it is less than a 4 (MPF will send the person away). I haven't met a CC yet who has the balls to non-concur and fill out the AF Form 77. I have even been threatened with the, "this will reflect on your EPR because you didn't follow the rules or failed to enforce the standards." Who gives a shit? My job is to ensure the proper rating is reflected on the report--I don't care about pretty little forms being filled out.

I agree & disagree...

I agree not giving a feedback doesn't buy an automatic firewall... but most supervisors don't want to look like an idot up and down the chain, so they just take the easy way out and go with the rating that (unfortunately) won't draw any questions. The troop won't bitch and go over the supervisor and say, "I didn't get any feedback."

I will slightly agree that you shouldn't change your ratings because a feedback wasn't done... but in not doing a FORMAL feedback and establishing clear goals & standards for the ratee, you have failed them as a supervisor. Just telling them they suck on a daily basis isn't enough.

I've only seen 1 time a non-concur threat followed through. Most just throw it out there, and if no one bites, they let it go.

The only recourse you have on an EPR is if it is a referal... you can't "fight" a rating you disagree with. Lack of feedback is not ground to appeal for any rating.

Gotta throw the BS flag on the "who gives a shit?" ONE of your jobs is to properly rate a subordinate. Another is to give them FORMAL feedback at least twice during the rating period. It is more than "just filling out pretty forms." How can you look your troops in the eye and hold them accountable for not meeting standards, while they know you haven't given them formal feedback? Hard to have credibility when you are in violation of a written order, and are failing them as a supervisor.

[BadHairCut]

Gotta throw the BS flag on the "who gives a shit?" ONE of your jobs is to properly rate a subordinate. Another is to give them FORMAL feedback at least twice during the rating period. It is more than "just filling out pretty forms." How can you look your troops in the eye and hold them accountable for not meeting standards, while they know you haven't given them formal feedback? Hard to have credibility when you are in violation of a written order, and are failing them as a supervisor.

Thank you... Perhaps one of the major reasons our EPR system is so jacked up is because of ineffective or non-existent feedback. If the employee knows what's expected and is made aware of what it takes to cross the threshold from mediocrity into excellence, then there should never be any doubt as to how to rate the person when the time comes.

Instead, it seems no one really gives a hoot about the feedback portion of the EES, and it would seem, despite all the big talk from the HAF types, that our leaders don't give a crap about feedback either...Why is it not enforced more rigorously?...Why are leaders not held accountable for not providing or for 'pencil whipping' feedback? Why is lack of (or crappy) feedback simply shrugged off by most CoCs and not considered a grave injustice to the ratee? Why is it NOT a basis for EPR challenges??…Just how the hell is a person supposed to meet or exceed standards when those standards are never properly expressed?

I think taking feedback more seriously is really where we need to concentrate our efforts to fix the eval system. ...Simply marking people down arbitrarily or quota-fying the next rating cycle won’t fix jack.

[CrustySMSgt]

I think taking feedback more seriously is really where we need to concentrate our efforts to fix the eval system. ...Simply marking people down arbitrarily or quota-fying the next rating cycle won’t fix jack.

I wonder what the value to making an on-line system of providing/documenting feedback would be? If it is all out there for anyone to see, it would be verifyable, CoC could log on and check not only to see IF their members are providing feedback... and better yet, would have visibility on how constructive the feedback is... are they setting realistic standards, or just drawing a line down the right side and saying "good job"; keep it up!" :rolleyes:

I agree, fixing this portion of the EES is key to the process.

[Measure Man]

I wonder what the value to making an on-line system of providing/documenting feedback would be? If it is all out there for anyone to see, it would be verifyable, CoC could log on and check not only to see IF their members are providing feedback... and better yet, would have visibility on how constructive the feedback is... are they setting realistic standards, or just drawing a line down the right side and saying "good job"; keep it up!" :rolleyes:

I agree, fixing this portion of the EES is key to the process.

I don't see any reason we couldn't just make the feedback an official part of the record. Once it gets there, it shouldn't be used for promotion or anything else...but making it officially be part of the record...makes people more apt to do them correctly.

I never understood the "private communication" part of that...what's the big secret?

I don't think feedback is the answer to EPR inflation though...I don't think it is the lack of feedback driving people to give firewall EPRs...rather, I think it's the other way around...people are not doing feedback because they know the guy is getting a firewall EPR.

[CrustySMSgt]

I don't see any reason we couldn't just make the feedback an official part of the record. Once it gets there, it shouldn't be used for promotion or anything else...but making it officially be part of the record...makes people more apt to do them correctly.

I never understood the "private communication" part of that...what's the big secret?

I don't think feedback is the answer to EPR inflation though...I don't think it is the lack of feedback driving people to give firewall EPRs...rather, I think it's the other way around...people are not doing feedback because they know the guy is getting a firewall EPR.

I don't get what the big secret is either... :confused:

Not sure what the balance between the two is... but I'd be more apt to think there are more supervisors giving firewalls because they don't want to face the lack of feedback questions. I will agree there are those who don't bother to give feedback to their "sharp troops" because they don't feel they need it... which of course is still wrong.

[Measure Man]

I don't get what the big secret is either... :confused:

Not sure what the balance between the two is... but I'd be more apt to think there are more supervisors giving firewalls because they don't want to face the lack of feedback questions. I will agree there are those who don't bother to give feedback to their "sharp troops" because they don't feel they need it... which of course is still wrong.

...and although it is officially not an excuse....it sure would be nice if we'd consistently get notifications when feedback is due.

I get one every once in awhile...but definitely not all the time when I'm supposed to.

I know the official excuse is "well, that is your responsibility as a supervisor"...because a functioning info system is apparently too much to ask for.

[FedUp]

MPF will not turn you away, matter of fact MPF reccommended the IG, not based off the rating of the EPR because the IG could care less, but not following "policy and procedure" aka not conducting mandatory feedbacks is something the IG takes interest in. Not having a feedback given(initial/midterm) at all, how can anyone honestly sign that EPR unless it is most definitely a 5.

I know if I give no feedbacks whatsoever, set no "personal" guidelines or expectations for the individual, how can I not give them a 5? I'm not talking about individuals that have a papertrail or anything like that, I'm talking "joe airforce hardworker" that doesnt get that 5 but works for incompetant(sp) shop chiefs and flight chiefs that get firewall 5s!!

[THELADYKT]

...and although it is officially not an excuse....it sure would be nice if we'd consistently get notifications when feedback is due.

I get one every once in awhile...but definitely not all the time when I'm supposed to.

I know the official excuse is "well, that is your responsibility as a supervisor"...because a functioning info system is apparently too much to ask for.

Unfortunately you are right. The PCIII/MilPDS is supposed to "know" when a feedback is due and send paperwork..... It usually works ok for a CRO at least for the initial one but the midterm gets all jacked up esp if you aren't going to have the person for a full year before the next report is due.

I know the last big all AF squadron I was in, I built my own database to track feedbacks and when they were due and forced a feedback sheet out of PCIII/MilPDS to give to the supervisors.

[horse]

So, feedback which is mandatory doesn't currently work. Let's put it on another web site which can't handle the traffic--that will fix things. Feedback on a form does nothing more than make big AF feel like they have done something for the Airmen. Like most forms, they are pencil whipped (like the CFETP)! Daily interaction lets Airmen no where they stand. If they are too dense to get, then too bad.

[FedUp]

So, feedback which is mandatory doesn't currently work. Let's put it on another web site which can't handle the traffic--that will fix things. Feedback on a form does nothing more than make big AF feel like they have done something for the Airmen. Like most forms, they are pencil whipped (like the CFETP)! Daily interaction lets Airmen no where they stand. If they are too dense to get, then too bad.

Actually that feedback can be used to help the airman should they get a bogus rating.

[CrustySMSgt]

So, feedback which is mandatory doesn't currently work. Let's put it on another web site which can't handle the traffic--that will fix things. Feedback on a form does nothing more than make big AF feel like they have done something for the Airmen. Like most forms, they are pencil whipped (like the CFETP)! Daily interaction lets Airmen no where they stand. If they are too dense to get, then too bad.

So how often, during your daily interaction with Airmen do you discuss in depth career goals, education, resource management, long term career goals, and all the rest. If it is often... good on you... but I'd say you are more the exception than the rule.

[ramprat]

total lack of integrity at all levels!! thats the cause.
all do a 360 and see the problem head on.

[Shrike]

total lack of integrity at all levels!! thats the cause.
all do a 360 and see the problem head on.

Uh...


If you do a 360, you're right back pointing the same direction you were.

[AF Chief]

I think written feedback is very important. BUT, this does not preclude you from doing verbal daily feedback. If you give daily verbal feedback, by the time you write a formal feedback, it should be all good.

[LogDog_guest]

I think written feedback is very important. BUT, this does not preclude you from doing verbal daily feedback. If you give daily verbal feedback, by the time you write a formal feedback, it should be all good.
Verbal feedback should be a part of any supervisor's or manager's daily business when they interact with their people but the written feedback should enable the airman to correlate their daily feedback to their EPR. The verbal and written feedbacks should support each other so the individual isn't getting mixed signals. For example, if your daily feedbacks are praising them for their work and then the written feedback says they aren't working hard enough or have the skills expected of them there is a disconnect. You have to ensure both verbal and written feedbacks honestly address the facts.

[CrustySMSgt]

Verbal feedback should be a part of any supervisor's or manager's daily business when they interact with their people but the written feedback should enable the airman to correlate their daily feedback to their EPR. The verbal and written feedbacks should support each other so the individual isn't getting mixed signals. For example, if your daily feedbacks are praising them for their work and then the written feedback says they aren't working hard enough or have the skills expected of them there is a disconnect. You have to ensure both verbal and written feedbacks honestly address the facts.

Amen! I'm all for daily interaction, but giving formal feedback puts it on paper and lays it all out. It gives a clear representation of what you feel their weak areas are, where they are doing good, and gives written guidance on how to improve. Saves the surprise when a troop gets told all year long, "hey, you're doing a great job!" only to find out their supervisors definition of a "good job" is an "above average" 4.

[LogDog_guest]

Amen! I'm all for daily interaction, but giving formal feedback puts it on paper and lays it all out. It gives a clear representation of what you feel their weak areas are, where they are doing good, and gives written guidance on how to improve. Saves the surprise when a troop gets told all year long, "hey, you're doing a great job!" only to find out their supervisors definition of a "good job" is an "above average" 4.
Exactly what I said. If the daily (verbal) feedback matches the formal feedback then when the EPR is written the individual won't be surprised by it.

[CrustySMSgt]

Exactly what I said. If the daily (verbal) feedback matches the formal feedback then when the EPR is written the individual won't be surprised by it.

I was agreeing with you (hence the "amen")

[Proud Mom]

I have a general question for all of you as this thread is very interesting to me as my son just got his first EPR.

When he got to his first base he was basically sent after a month overseas to be a Security Force Augmentee for 6 months. After he got back his Commander talked to him and asked him what were his goals, his career plans and he told him he wanted to make Sr. Airmen below the zone.

He was given a straight forward outline, show initiative, give 110 percent, do volunteer work and start taking classes etc.

He joined Big Brothers, he does Habitat for Humanity and he has volunteered for the Drunk Taxi on call thing, he finished his CDC's with a decnt score of 91, he stayed late every night after he got back from overseas to learn his job, to work the contracts he had been given assigned, he has been called into his First Shirts office to be told what an outstanding job he's been doing, going the extra mile etc. and he just got all 5's on his EPR. He was estatic and plans on working that much harder to prove to them they were justified in scoring him that way. He made Airmen of the Quarter for his Squadron and they are going to nominate him for the ACC Contracting Airmen of the year.

Now, I understand every person who does them does them differently and some truly and earnestly complete them and some pencil whip them...but in the case of a new Airmen like my son who got all 5's is that an unrealistic score or is he going to have problems down the road if he scores lower or can we just be proud and hope the score does truly motivate him to strive to continue to earn that faith they put in him?

[CrustySMSgt]

Now, I understand every person who does them does them differently and some truly and earnestly complete them and some pencil whip them...but in the case of a new Airmen like my son who got all 5's is that an unrealistic score or is he going to have problems down the road if he scores lower or can we just be proud and hope the score does truly motivate him to strive to continue to earn that faith they put in him?

Sounds like he is on the right track to me! He just needs to remember to ensure all the "extra stuff" doesn't interfere with his job.
From what you've said, it sounds like he is finding the right mix, and is showing he really wants to make himself better and not just be an average Airman.

[DeadGeneration]

I have a general question for all of you as this thread is very interesting to me as my son just got his first EPR.

When he got to his first base he was basically sent after a month overseas to be a Security Force Augmentee for 6 months. After he got back his Commander talked to him and asked him what were his goals, his career plans and he told him he wanted to make Sr. Airmen below the zone.

He was given a straight forward outline, show initiative, give 110 percent, do volunteer work and start taking classes etc.

He joined Big Brothers, he does Habitat for Humanity and he has volunteered for the Drunk Taxi on call thing, he finished his CDC's with a decnt score of 91, he stayed late every night after he got back from overseas to learn his job, to work the contracts he had been given assigned, he has been called into his First Shirts office to be told what an outstanding job he's been doing, going the extra mile etc. and he just got all 5's on his EPR. He was estatic and plans on working that much harder to prove to them they were justified in scoring him that way. He made Airmen of the Quarter for his Squadron and they are going to nominate him for the ACC Contracting Airmen of the year.

Now, I understand every person who does them does them differently and some truly and earnestly complete them and some pencil whip them...but in the case of a new Airmen like my son who got all 5's is that an unrealistic score or is he going to have problems down the road if he scores lower or can we just be proud and hope the score does truly motivate him to strive to continue to earn that faith they put in him?

As long as the people he hopes to impress still take interest he should be fine. I am facing a tough couple of weeks because my mentors aren't around. I used to have an awesome setup for success. I would come into work and train very hard until lunch, learning technique and skills on the job. After lunch I would feel accomplished, but not worn out that I could spend the afternoon studying, researching, finishing work left over from the morning, working out, and finishing the day strong. Lately, with my training instructor and supervisor being gone I have been doing "special duty" assignments supporting base programs that have nothing to do with progressing in my job. The real problem comes when it takes a day long and leaves me drained and unmotivated to do anything but crash at night. Thankfully, this is only temporary.

Again, it's possible to achieve everything on his own but having support is so much better. He is lucky to have you.

Edit: And now I have FTAC next week --- !!! :(

[CrustySMSgt]

Edit: And now I have FTAC next week --- !!! :(


FTAC? How long have you been at the base? Everywhere I've been, you do FTAC as soon as you arrive...

[DeadGeneration]

I've been here for about 2 1/2 months. Several reasons why I haven't been to FTAC are:

1) Small base, not many new airman are unlucky enough to come here so they have to wait until they get a decent roster
2) They started the last FTAC right before I got here
3) FTAC got pushed back

[THELADYKT]

FTAC? How long have you been at the base? Everywhere I've been, you do FTAC as soon as you arrive...

It happens here at Creech sometimes too. If someone PCS's in right before their class start date, they may have to go through the 3 months of school first and then go through FTAC.....although in my opinion, by three months in they really dont need it.

[ramprat]

and the result is::::average people at the top and the exceptional bailing out.

[LogDog_guest]

I have a general question for all of you as this thread is very interesting to me as my son just got his first EPR.

When he got to his first base he was basically sent after a month overseas to be a Security Force Augmentee for 6 months. After he got back his Commander talked to him and asked him what were his goals, his career plans and he told him he wanted to make Sr. Airmen below the zone.

He was given a straight forward outline, show initiative, give 110 percent, do volunteer work and start taking classes etc.

He joined Big Brothers, he does Habitat for Humanity and he has volunteered for the Drunk Taxi on call thing, he finished his CDC's with a decnt score of 91, he stayed late every night after he got back from overseas to learn his job, to work the contracts he had been given assigned, he has been called into his First Shirts office to be told what an outstanding job he's been doing, going the extra mile etc. and he just got all 5's on his EPR. He was estatic and plans on working that much harder to prove to them they were justified in scoring him that way. He made Airmen of the Quarter for his Squadron and they are going to nominate him for the ACC Contracting Airmen of the year.

Now, I understand every person who does them does them differently and some truly and earnestly complete them and some pencil whip them...but in the case of a new Airmen like my son who got all 5's is that an unrealistic score or is he going to have problems down the road if he scores lower or can we just be proud and hope the score does truly motivate him to strive to continue to earn that faith they put in him?
Tell him to continue what he's going and he'll be okay. I'd recommend he work hard at his job and promote himself out of his job. In other words, he can do his job so well that he can handle more difficult jobs and responsibilities. Ideally, whatever rank he is now the job he'll be given will normally be handled by someone one or two grades above his rank. That always looks good on the EPR especially when he's going for SrA BTZ, quarterly/yearly awards or later down the road for the STEP program. I've sat on base level SrA BTZ boards as well as base level quarterly/yearly boards and I can testify that what your son is doing will make him stand out.

[Proud Mom]

Thank you to everyone who replied to me about Jay.
As a parent you always TRY to teach your kids to be the best they can be for their own personal sense of accomplishment and I think somewhere along the line it actually sunk in with him LOL. Thanks everyone, your fantastic!

[ramprat]

why dont you active duty NCOs tell the top cmsaf to read these comments???

[BadHairCut]

Great idea! I've got his personal number on speed dial.....

[10Man]

Point 1 I completely agree with you. Second point no. Sorry but from someone that got screwed by a sexist a$$hole when I was in maintenance, this is a bad idea. After the report was a matter of record (before the ratee had to sign it), it took an act of god to get it removed which I never accomplished and it did haunt me a couple of years later when I went for BTZ (another story but the same a$$hole caused me trouble then).

Until they take the EPRs out of the WAPS promotion system, it will continue to be inflated as was the APR system before it. The other thing I don't want to see happen is what happened when EPRs first came out, quotas.......

For those of you who don't remember this, each squadron set a quota on how many 5, 4, 3 it could give out based on how many in the squadron......So guess what, you could be the next coming of John Levitow but if your EPR was late in the "cycle" and all the 5s were "taken" guess what happened to you?
I agree with you on that on LADY, I remember when I was an airman and my shop chief would lean on the SNCO's about the quota being maintained that you mentioned, the system is flawed, just like the APR system was, I always said that when we changed to the EPR system, the same thing will continue, just less category numbers to do it with, each category had 9 rating grades we went down to 5 rating grades. Don't get me wrong, there are supervisors that are doing the right thing, but the system has too many hands in the process. I remember writing EPR's and we would get a new SQ/CC and that person would tweak suspenses, and what he/she wanted on the EPR, no space to the right, add "fluff", sub-bullets, no sub-bullets, I can personally tell you, some bullets are impossible to write, when you have one line to show cause & effect. Lastly there is the factor of supervisor emotion, if your supervisor likes you, it's all good, if the supervisor dislikes you, it's a rougher road to drive down. It is a tragedy to get screwed over because of a bad supervisor.

[Shrike]

Great idea! I've got his personal number on speed dial.....

Make sure you call the top CMSAF, not the middle or the bottom one.

[BadHairCut]

Make sure you call the top CMSAF, not the middle or the bottom one.

Roger that...the Deputy and VIce CMSAFs never answer their phones anyway

[Mississippian]

If anyone remembers, when the EPR system was implemented, everyone was supposed to be average, 3. That being said, we were dumped on big time and the EPR system prevented many from getting promoted. Now everyone is getting fives, inflated. Can you truly tell me that the EPR system is fair? I doubt it, that’s why you see punks getting promoted.

[Sgt HULK]

yeah but ill bet you 95% of those on this site complaining of epr inflation benefited from it in some way or another and now that they ahve reaped thoise benny's they wanna make and preach the change

[CrustySMSgt]

yeah but ill bet you 95% of those on this site complaining of epr inflation benefited from it in some way or another and now that they ahve reaped thoise benny's they wanna make and preach the change

I'd say the number is closer to 100%. So what? We should all just bury our heads in the sand and continue to rubber stamp firewall 5s because we got them? I can't control the ratings I got... but I am confident whatever the rating I deserved, I still stood out among my peers. And that is the bottom line. If your troop isn't standing out amongst their peers, then mark them down. Just because Amn Snuffy in the next office is getting a firewall from a different supervisor for the same level of performance doesn't make your troop any less average.

Take care of your piece of the pie and you'll be doing the right thing. Try and influence your peers to do the same, and we'll right this ship. Will it ever be perfect? Of course not.

[Modus]

I know I have lol. Most people just aren't honest, with others, and with themselves. I'm sure they don't enforce standards because they don't want to be held to those same standards. I think that's the bottomline.

[LOAL-D]

Crusty, I hear you...but who is going to volunteer to be the first one rated objectively?.......

[CrustySMSgt]

Crusty, I hear you...but who is going to volunteer to be the first one rated objectively?.......

Bring it on (oh wait, I'm not getting promoted again! :tongue: )

Volunteering isn't an option. If you do the right things, you'll be rewarded, If you give your troops clear and constructive feedback, then it is up to them to earn their 5. If they don't, they can't bitch to you.

If you also hold your troops who are supervisors accountable to rate their subordinates properly, then they've gto the incentive to do the right thing... or suffer themselves.

[LOAL-D]

Bring it on (oh wait, I'm not getting promoted again! :tongue: )

Volunteering isn't an option. If you do the right things, you'll be rewarded, If you give your troops clear and constructive feedback, then it is up to them to earn their 5. If they don't, they can't bitch to you.

If you also hold your troops who are supervisors accountable to rate their subordinates properly, then they've gto the incentive to do the right thing... or suffer themselves.

uh huh,you know that, I know that, but that is not what's happening.....
and I didn't mean "volunteer", just that no one likes to be the sacrificial lamb, to prove a point....

[oih82w8]

My wife, who was prior service, suggested that only those who have won, Airman/NCO/SNCO of the Month should be able to achieve a "firewall 5". Not a bad idea, and it gives those who truly want to excell something to aim for, actually putting forth the effort to be recognized. But then again, it's usually the writer who puts the package together for the Amn/NCO/SNCO to win.:cool:

[Shrike]

My wife, who was prior service, suggested that only those who have won, Airman/NCO/SNCO of the Month should be able to achieve a "firewall 5". Not a bad idea, and it gives those who truly want to excell something to aim for, actually putting ofrth the effort to be recognized. But then again, it's usually the writer who puts the package together for the Amn/NCO/SNCO to win.:cool:

And therein lies the problem: since nominees no longer physically go before boards, it's just as much of a writing competition as a "who did the best job" competition.

[Sgt HULK]

well i am sure its been said already however the reason why EPR inflation will never stop was just proven this week. My buddy missed tech by 3 points ( yes I know he shoulda studied blah blah blah) becaiuse he got a 4 epr 5 yrs ago. 5 yrs ago and he is still "paying for his mistake" now anyone can say he shoulda studied harder

fine

however there is so much weight put on it who wants to be like that. his supervisor is now out of the usaf and this guy is a good NCO and deserved it.

paying for 5 yrs sucks

just an opinion that i am sure to get ridiculed for

[BRAVO10000]

well i am sure its been said already however the reason why EPR inflation will never stop was just proven this week. My buddy missed tech by 3 points ( yes I know he shoulda studied blah blah blah) becaiuse he got a 4 epr 5 yrs ago. 5 yrs ago and he is still "paying for his mistake" now anyone can say he shoulda studied harder

fine

however there is so much weight put on it who wants to be like that. his supervisor is now out of the usaf and this guy is a good NCO and deserved it.

paying for 5 yrs sucks

just an opinion that i am sure to get ridiculed for


Not ridiculing that position at all. Trust me, you pay for it a lot longer than 5 years when it is time to compete for Senior or Chief.

But what is a good reachback threshhold? You don't want a system that promotes a guy because he had just one good year (flash in the pan)...

[BRAVO10000]

My wife, who was prior service, suggested that only those who have won, Airman/NCO/SNCO of the Month should be able to achieve a "firewall 5". Not a bad idea, and it gives those who truly want to excell something to aim for, actually putting ofrth the effort to be recognized. But then again, it's usually the writer who puts the package together for the Amn/NCO/SNCO to win.:cool:

All you do, then, is create a "puff puff pass" approach where awards are concerned. Yes, I am aware that this is already in effect at a lot of places in favor of building EPRs...but in some environments, an A1C might be competing against 40 peers. In others, they only compete with 2 or 3 (or even none at all). Shouldn't affect their promotability, should it?

[BigT2002]

Simply put:

No one wants to effect someone elses career. To make Senior and above you basically need Firewalls all the way from SrA in most cases. One 4 and you have already been shot in the foot. The "nice guy" syndrome comes out. And when people want to make the difference and give someone a "3" because they literally with average and did the minimal work....it gets challenged all the way up to the Shirt because its too low.

[DHarris75]

My wife, who was prior service, suggested that only those who have won, Airman/NCO/SNCO of the Month should be able to achieve a "firewall 5". Not a bad idea, and it gives those who truly want to excell something to aim for, actually putting ofrth the effort to be recognized. But then again, it's usually the writer who puts the package together for the Amn/NCO/SNCO to win.:cool:

If we fixed the awards program - than okay. But with the current program - forget about it. I haven't whined about this here yet...because I don't want it to sound like sour grapes...but it's relevant here.

I was nominated for a QTR award. Our brand new unit had it's first real mission and I was more than instrumental in it's success. I was called in on off days because of my equipment expertise, I solved issues in communication connectivity, and our unit posted the best numbers of all the units that participated. This mission had a DOD wide impact (validated success of new satellite). I was awarded 1 of 3 coins/certs from the organization overseeing the multi-service mission. I also attended 3 formal classes during the qtr. Anyway - so I was more than just a major player in our only mission to that point.

My package lost...to an NCO that was not a part of the mission at all. He is a great NCO and friend...so this is not to disparage him at all. But the reason he won was because he took a college class that had absolutely nothing to do with his job. I was told by a member of the murder board that I beat him in work and volunteer (volunteered at Amn's attic since my wife is the mgr and also at school) - but he had a college class and I didnt.

I reminded him that I already had 2 CCAF degrees....and I took 3 equipment formal classes during the qtr...and the reason I had to push off chasing my BS degree was because of a pending deployment and the mission that we ran. But none of that mattered - in the end, his one college class made up the difference in work bullets.

So do I not deserve a firewall 5? To me, if you are a great worker and instrumental in major things your unit is doing, you may not have time to take a class that quarter. If you send me TDY for a school...maybe I can't squeeze in a college class. And besides, I already have my CCAFs...which is the only educational requirement for Sr Rater Endorsement. What about guys that have their Masters and take a break from college. They would have lost the qtrly board my package met...I don't care what they did in the other categories.

I don't agree at all with correlating awards with EPRs. Awards are subjective...EPRs should be more concrete.

[Sgt HULK]

Not ridiculing that position at all. Trust me, you pay for it a lot longer than 5 years when it is time to compete for Senior or Chief.

But what is a good reachback threshhold? You don't want a system that promotes a guy because he had just one good year (flash in the pan)...

Its just sad to be told that above average is not good enough lol, and Until the EPR's carry less weight then they do, This will never stop. I have'nt been in as long as most here. I am pretty sure that I am the guy described in every post here. 5 yrs in. came in as a A1C at 26 college under my belt, first time staff at my 3 yrs etc..

however do to my very first supervisor not pulling any bs punches when I got here and telling me how it is I can say without a doubt I have earned my EPR.s school, masters degree courses working late arriving early losing weekends to community volunteering. Pissing my wife off because i am rebuilding some walking bridge on a state trail etc. etc he basically told me that is what I need to do. Because getting shit you dont earn will dime you out.

so it sucks for me now when I am writing on my troops who do much much much less then I ever had to put up with as an airmen and being told. rewrite this 4 he deserves better then that.

we he didnt, all he does is show up for work he does nothing else outside of the shop sad isnt it. when just showing up for work and doing your job isnt good enough.

its a deadly never ending cycle. and until the weight of the dreaded 4 goes away it will forever be this way. OSI turned a guy down in our shop due to a 4 epr a few yrs back. OSI who always needs people lol

i wonder who if any will have the balls to step in and make the changes and lessen the weight of the 4

[BRAVO10000]

i wonder who if any will have the balls to step in and make the changes and lessen the weight of the 4

This has been a hot topic since the APR days at least.

We're caught between competing objectives. On one hand, we are grooming people to assume our roles and making them competitive; on the other hand, we're trying to serve as "watch dog" for an honest rating.

I DON'T think that the answer is to lessen the weight of the 4. We forget that this is a performance evaluation...that SHOULD be the most important thing when someone is being considered for promotion, because it is theoretically a "whole person" assessment of someone's suitability for the next level of leadership and responsibility. It is a subjective evaluation; it allows the rater to make a recommendation as to their promotion. If it were a purely objective evaluation, it would just serve as a checklist for that careerist crowd.

Where's the middle ground? Quotas don't work because not all workcenters are the same in size, demographic, environment and responsibility. Unless every workcenter has the same tempo with the same amount of challenges, the rating will HAVE to remain subjective.

I've wondered if we should consider a "gatekeeper" approach. My guess is that no matter how you organize it, the person that is responsible for the rating is corruptible. The best answer I can think of is...promotion boards for all ranks. The level of authority for each promotion should cascade, with the quotas established at AFPC.

I dunno, just an initial thought without any real research to support it. The Army guys tell me that it works pretty well; then again, those guys shoot to E-6 pretty quickly.

[softroop]

I don’t know if this still occurs, but I believe another factor that contributed to the rating problem is the “observation report” from board members. The ones I routinely saw all usually had the same theme: EPRs with firewall 5s, senior rater endorsement, and stratification in the SRE section were (usually) scored higher. They also mentioned things like quantification, and impact of bullet statements. This annual information push flowed to SNCOs, and eventually, to Commanders. It was usually taken as instructions on how to write the perfect EPR. Everyone, from the ratee to the CC now knew the direct impact of a overall 4 or a markdown on the front of the EPR, and it came directly from the source (even though the info is always preempted by “ these are my personal observations, and do not reflect official board proceedings…).

Consequently, now the firewall 5 is the norm; anything else is the exception. Anything other than a firewall 5 has to be “explained” (do you have any documentation to support this 4/markdown ?) WTF? If anything, it should be the other way around, where you might need to provide justification for a firewall 5.