AHRC-PDV-S 20 September 2016

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SECRETARIAT FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SELECTION BOARDS 1600 SPEARHEAD DIVISION AVENUE FORT KNOX, KY AHRC-PDV-S 20 September 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR Director of Military Personnel Management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC SUBJECT: Field After Action Report Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) Regular Army (RA) / 1. References. a. AR , Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, dated 18 December b. Department of the Army Pamphlet , dated 11 September c. DAPE-MPE-PD, 23 August 2016, Subject: Instructions for the Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) Regular Army (RA) / United States Army Reserve (USAR) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) United States Army Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA) Training and Selection, USAR Troop Program Unit (TPU) and Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Command Sergeant Major (CSM), USAR Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) Sergeant First Class (SFC) through Sergeant Major (SGM) Promotion, and RA USAR (AGR) First Sergeant (1SG) / Master Sergeant (MSG) Qualitative Service Program (QSP) Selection Board. 2. General: The FY16 RA / USAR AGR USASMA Training and Selection, USAR TPU/IMA CSM, USAR DIMA SFC through SGM Promotion, and RA / USAR AGR 1SG/MSG QSP Selection Boards convened at the DA Secretariat, Fort Knox, Kentucky on 7 September 2016, to select the best qualified noncommissioned officers for the purpose of promotion to Sergeant Major (SGM) and eligible 1SG/MSG for denial of continued service. The board selected eligible candidates for involuntary separation from active duty in accordance with references 1a and 1c above. The board also screened packets on Soldiers referred to it under the Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) process and conducted a Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Board.

2 3. Board Issues and Observations. a. Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER). (1) Rater and Senior Rater Comments. (a) Discussion: The most competitive files contained a consistent pattern of outstanding performance in leadership positions, staff, and broadening assignments. Rater and senior rater comments that support block checks with specific, qualitative, and quantitative bullets are extremely useful when determining the best qualified NCOs. Rater comments that support Excellence through Far Exceeded Standard box checks on the NCOER were useful in determining the quality of performance of NCOs. Unsupported or marginally supported box checks generally detract from the credibility of the rater and the overall value of the evaluation. (b) Recommendation: Raters should provide comments that support Exceeded Standard and Far Exceeded Standard block checks with specific, qualitative, and quantitative bullets. Senior raters should provide enumeration that clearly supports the overall message that is trying to be conveyed to the board. (2) Senior Rater Enumeration. (a) Discussion: A significant amount of NCOERs viewed by the board indicated a 1/1 rating by the senior rater; however, many of these NCOERs did not have any enumeration distinguishing the rated NCO from his/her peers. Clear enumeration sent a much stronger message to the board than the use of percentages. Generic comments such as a true professional, one of the best, or a top 5% NCO were viewed less favorably than a strong enumeration. (b) Recommendation: Senior raters should provide the board a word picture which accurately describes the performance and potential of the rated NCO. Senior raters should reserve the highest enumeration for those NCOs most deserving of promotion. Failing to enumerate the best NCOs sends an unclear message to the board. 2

3 (3) Inconsistency in Rater Box Checks. (a) Discussion: The board identified numerous NCOERs where rater box checks were inconsistent with the rater s performance assessment (e.g., all Success box checks and an Among the Best rating). (b) Recommendation: Raters should ensure that their overall assessment is consistent with the NCO s demonstrated performance in Part IV of the NCOER. An overall rating of Among the Best without some Excellence ratings in Part IV was viewed by the board as an inconsistent rating and did not carry as much weight in the overall assessment of the NCO s board file. (4) Rater Assessments Do Not Match. (a) Discussion: There were numerous cases where rater and senior rater assessments were inconsistent (e.g. rater assessed as Fully Capable and senior rater assessed as a 2/1 or 1/1). Inconsistencies between rater and senior rater assessments are challenging for board members to interpret when there are no comments from the reviewer to clarify the inconsistency. (b) Recommendation: The rating chain must collaborate to ensure they are sending a consistent and accurate message to the board regarding the NCO s performance and potential. When the rater and senior rater differ in their assessments, the reviewer should non-concur and account for these inconsistencies in their comments. (5) Identical Comments on NCOERs. (a) Discussion: Many NCOERs had identical comments on successive NCOERs from raters and/or senior raters. Although the comments may have painted an accurate assessment of the NCO, board members viewed these NCOERs less favorably due to the perception that the rater and/or senior rater did not take the time to accurately update the assessment of the NCO. (b) Recommendation: Raters and senior raters should refer to previous evaluations they completed on the same NCO to inform their current assessment on growth and trends in performance/potential. However, they should carefully avoid using all of the exact same bullet comments to describe the performance and potential of the rated NCO. 3

4 b. Enlisted Record Brief (ERB). (1) ERB Accuracy. (a) Discussion: The board considered the ERB as a snapshot of a Soldier s current state of readiness, experience, accomplishments, credentials, and career summary. A large number of ERBs were inaccurate, missing information, or not updated/validated. Many ERBs showed Known loss, Incoming personnel, or Surplus Soldier. These entries did not provide the board with the information needed to consider the file accurately and caused the file to not be considered favorably. Other discrepancies on the ERB included not updated or accurate military and civilian education, incorrectly inputted technical certifications, duty description not matching NCOERs, and time in duty position errors. (b) Recommendation: Soldiers of all ranks should take personal ownership of their files at all times. Human resource specialists at the company and battalion level should assist Soldiers in screening ERBs for accuracy. Paying appropriate attention to the holistic summary the ERB provides is an excellent way for Soldiers being considered for promotion to show the board they are interested in their career advancement in the same way one would prepare for a personal interview. Soldiers who take the time and effort to update and certify their files send a clear message to the board and are considered more favorably for promotion. (2) Documentation Support. (a) Discussion: All entries on the ERB should be up to date and supported with documentation in the NCO s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). Many ERBs had annotations (college credit, awards, military courses, etc.) that were not supported by documentation (transcripts, award certificates, course completion certificates, etc.) in the AMHRR. Additionally, Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and Language scores were not recent or did not match what was being shown in the Soldiers NCOERs. (b) Recommendation: Soldiers should work with their unit S1 to ensure that they are properly slotted in MTO&E or TDA authorized positions which should be reflected in emilpo based on the date they assumed their duties. Leaders should emphasize the importance of records reviews. A records review with a human resource specialist is a designated opportunity for Soldiers to ensure the proper documentation is in their AMHRR, and Soldiers should be taking advantage of those opportunities. 4

5 c. The Department of the Army (DA) Photo. (1) Importance of Photo. (a) Discussion: The photo is a key document in the voting process and is generally the first document viewed by the board members. It is the virtual professional hand shake to the board members. Thus, having an inaccurate or outdated DA Photo sends a strong message to board members that the NCO does not comply with Army regulations and does not have a vested interest in their own career progression. (b) Recommendation: NCOs should ensure their file contains a current and accurate DA Photo. (2) Photo Matching ERB. (a) Discussion: The photo does not match the ERB or is not in compliance with AR Several Soldiers awards and decorations on their uniform did not match their ERB/AMHRR. Board members also identified several violations of the proper wear of awards and badges that were not in compliance with AR (b) Recommendation: Soldiers should take the appropriate time to inspect their uniform to ensure it is in compliance with AR and that all awards worn on the uniform match the Soldier s ERB/AMHRR. Supervisors should assist in the inspection of Soldiers uniforms prior to the candidate taking their DA Photo. Further, supervisors should also review the Soldiers DA Photo and ERB prior to the candidate validating their board photo. d. Letters to the Board President. (1) Discussion: Several Soldiers submitted letters to the Board President to explain variances between their ERB and DA Photo, inform the board of acceptance into professional organizations (i.e., Sergeant Audie Murphy Club (SAMC)), notify the board of anticipated completion of civilian education, explain disagreements with NCOER ratings on performance and potential, and bring other matters to the board s attention that they deemed significant for consideration. Many of these letters to the Board President did not meet the intent of AR , chapter 4-5, because either they did not specifically address substantive information that would have an impact on the board s deliberations or they attempted to explain derogatory information for which there is a separate and distinct process. 5

6 (2) Recommendation: Soldiers should carefully review AR , chapter 4-5 and request counsel from their senior leaders to determine if a letter to the Board President is appropriate. Letters to the Board President should only explain discrepancies or missing information in the Soldier s AMHRR that are substantive. Letters asking for special consideration for promotion or addressing inconsequential information often sends an unfavorable message to board members. e. Personal and Professional Development. (1) Professional or Civilian Education. (a) Discussion: NCOs who exceeded course standards in attendance at Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) schools and military schools that award an Additional Skill Identifier (ASI), as annotated on DA Form 1059s, were viewed more favorably by board members. A higher level of civilian education was also an indicator of life-long learning. NCOs that continued to pursue military skill producing schools and higher levels of civilian education were viewed more favorably by the board. (b) Recommendation: NCOs should strive to continue to their professional and personal development by attending additional skill producing schools and higher civilian education. Those that demonstrated a commitment to lifelong learning were viewed as more competitive for promotion. f. Soldier Readiness and Physical Fitness. (1) Physical Fitness. (a) Discussion: NCOs who demonstrated a consistently high level of physical fitness were viewed as highly competitive (e.g., APFT score of 270 and above). Even those NCOs who had a permanent profile, yet scored high on the events that they could do, were viewed more favorably by the board. However, any Needs Improvement or failed APFT was looked upon less favorably. (b) Recommendation: NCOs should strive to maintain the highest level of physical fitness possible. NCOs who earn the Army Physical Fitness Badge or achieve a high score on the APFT should discuss with their rater about including a specific bullet comment on their NCOER to reflect outstanding performance. 6

7 (2) Soldier Physical Profile. (a) Discussion: The board found files with permanent profiles and APFT scores over 200 points confusing. According to Training Circular (TC) 22.20, Soldiers on a permanent profile are given a DA Form This form annotates exercise and activities suitable for the profiled Soldier. The form also stipulates the events and/or alternate aerobic events the Soldier will do on the APFT. There is no point score annotated on the DA Form 705 for performance of alternate aerobic events. These events are scored as either a GO or NO-GO. This statement clearly states that 200 points is the maximum points available for Soldiers on a permanent profile. (b) Recommendation: Soldiers on permanent profiles should use the NCOER (DA 2166) Part IVa to articulate the profile limitations and, if appropriate, how they exceeded 200 points. This would clarify to the board how they are able to execute the APFT or, if the limitations of their profile make 200 points their maximum. Using the PT box allows the board to understand the Soldiers overall readiness and physical fitness without manipulating scores or violating profiles. It also levels the playing field for the board members to fairly assess Soldiers on profile and Soldiers not on profile. 4. Conclusion or general comments. a. Leaders at all levels can do a better job of educating Soldiers on the vast array of assignment opportunities available to them and encourage them to push out of their comfort zones into diverse positions. b. Rating officials should understand that when they are drafting evaluations, they are writing to a group of individuals who come from a diverse field of expertise and specialty. The common aspects of leadership, impact the Soldier has on the organization, and enumeration should be emphasized. c. Ongoing review and validation of the NCO s AMHRR remains critical in the board preparation and promotion selection process. Candidates going before a centralized 7

8 promotion board should make every effort to review their record on My Board File. Soldiers should keep their ERBs and AMHRRs current at all times and not just for promotion and selection boards. //Original Signed// MICHAEL A. BILLS MG, USA Board President 8