A tool for Flag Writers - AMDO



A Tool for FLAGWRITERS

March 24, 2000

I just thought I would post this for all to read. This is

one board member’s lessons learned.

FY-01 E-9 SELECTION BOARD

LESSONS LEARNED

1. From 22 February through 7 March 2000, I was

TAD to he Naval Support Activity, Mid.South,

Millington, Tennessee, as a member of the FY41 E-9

Selection Board. This was my second Selection

Board. I was also a member of the FY-95 E-7

Selection Board held at the Navy Yard in

Washington, DC.

2. The purpose of this “trip report” Is to provide interested individuals with a “lessons learned” from the Board. Please keep in mind that the information in this trip report is based on my personal experiences and observances.

3. This year, the Board consisted of 81 voting members, broken down into 3 panels. Each panel was beaded by a commander, and had between four and nine members. A complete listing of all board members and their panel assignments is available on the BUPERS homepage.

4. The advancement opportunity for E-9 was 18.5 percent overall, with 597 quotas to be tilled by over 3,200 eligible senior chiefs. We utilizing a new automated system called the “Electronic Military Personnel Record System” or EMPRS (pronounced empress).

5. This was the second year to utilize this system. Last year the large selection boards had significant problems using the system with missing data files record management problems and system lock ups and shutdowns.

This year most of those problems have been corrected and we only had one significant system failure which resulted in the lost of .5 days computer access.

6. My panel (panel 4) consisted of four members, all male: A 1610 Commander, a GMCM, a TMCM, and myself. We reviewed approximately 200 records in six different ratings; PC, PT, GM, MN, MT, and TM.

7. This was the first year that individual special program briefs were not given to the board prior to deliberations. There was a 5 minute brief, if you want to call it that, by a PERS LT on equal opportunity. His EO brief only served to raise more questions that it answered. Several board members gave panel briefs for individual communities, i.e., Seals, EOD, EOA.

8. Every possible effort was taken by the PERS Staff and each board member to protect the integrity of the selection process and board deliberations.

Board precepts were handed down from CNP to the Board President, Captain B. M. Locke. The overriding concern of the board President was that we select the very best master chiefs, to lead the Navy In the future. Too many commands and reporting seniors forced the referees (board members) to decide the outcome of the game (who should be selected). Many commands wrote poor fitness reports that were vague, non-specific, or full of fluff. In my opinion, overall, the Atlantic fleet is writing better fltreps than the Pacific fleet.

a. Reporting seniors need to be very clear about identifying their top performers and should break them out every way they can, especially on a one-of-one detaching FIIREP. If you are not EP One-of-one the reporting senior needs to say why. Don’t leave holes and unanswered questions. If you do the board will most likely assume the worst. Ways to do this include, hut are not limited to: (1) Numerical rankings In block 41 are a big plus for your top performers. Bullets like “My #1 SCPO” break out the real top performers.

(2) If you break out an individual as your #1 or #2 in an annual fitrep and their level of performance remains consistent, say so in their transfer fitrep. Bullets like “still my #1 Sailor” or “Still the best CPO at this command” impressed the board.

(3) H the difference between the last El’ and first MP was.~small, say so in the comments section.

(4) Bullets like “My #1 Must Promote” can go a long way toward getting an individual promoted.

(5) Strong bullets on high visibility, high impact collateral duties were key to well written fitreps. Jobs like department LCPO, SEWC, acting CMC or COB, repair locker leader, FIT or CSTT coordinator, CMEO, and DAPA just to name a few, are the kind of jobs you want.

b. For a bullet to be effective, it must contain cause and effect.

It should say what the Individual did, how well they did it, and how their efforts positively impacted mission accomplishment. These impact statements must be written to get the board’s attention and should be placed early in the write-up. There is no requirement to put your “5.0” Justification statements in the same order as the blocks appear on the form. Put leadership first; mission accomplishment and teamwork next, professional expertise next, and save the military bearing for last. There’s no need to comment on Equal Opportunity unless they are part of your command’s equal opportunity program or there’s a problem. Space Is limited in the comment’s section - use It wisely.

c. Comment heavily on leadership and management ability. Include the number of personnel supervised, qualifications achieved above and beyond the expected and If the individual is performing duties beyond the scope of their current paygrade. A Fitness Report with a high EPA that Is short on leadership comments (and we saw many of those) is not viewed positively by a Board looking for leaden.

d. Rampant grade inflation is back. 5.Os were a dime a dozen and In the opinion of the Board Members, at least 911% of them were not Justified as required by the 1616. In our opinion, comments like “Consistently displays exceptional military bearing” or “recently scored his/her 10th consecutive OUTSTANDING on the semi-annual PRT” did not justify a 5.0 in military bearing. An X in the 1.0 or 2.0 column win (and did) get the board’s attention, but overall grade average played a very small role in the selection process unless it was significantly low. Grade inflation was so rampant, that by the second day, we began ignoring above average marks and concentrated instead on the performance documented in the comments section.

During the “crunch”, we sometimes paid attention to an individual’s FPA compared against the reporting senior’s average for that particular group and reporting period but usually only as a tie-breaker. The bottom line is, if Reporting Seniors can’t/won’t follow the grading guidelines in the 1616, (and many either can’t or won’t), the board will continue to ignore marks and concentrate on write-ups.

e. Don’t waste a lot of words or white space on college, community service, and PRT results. If the bulk of the comments section is used, especially in the top half of the section, on these areas we wondered when if you were doing the job the Navy sent you to your command to do and you probably are not competitive for master chief. It doesn’t matter and nobody cares if you’ve just scored your 19th consecutive outstanding on the PRT. Several ratings made a big deal of this in their fitreps at the expense of solid leadership or management bullets.

f. Watch the promotion recommendation on transfer fitreps. You must walk a fine line between consistency and giving the impression of the old “goodbye kiss”. If an individual has been an early promote or one of your stronger Must Promotes (and has been identified as such in the comments section), an Early Promote at transfer time will probably be viewed positively If the comments section is strong enough. If the individual has consistently been marked Promote, an Early Promote will be viewed as a kiss” and it will carry utile if any weight with the Selection Board.

g. Breakouts in large groups (1 or greater) are helpful, but not all ratings are assigned to commands with large peer groups. Therefore, make up for small peer groups with a very impact oriented write-up. Report drafters and reporting Seniors in smaller commands must take the time to write the strongest reports possible on their top performers.

h. Adverse information is not the “kiss of death”. If a record contained adverse material during the last five years, it was noted and discussed. But, if it’s apparent from the record the individual is successfully overcoming a lapse in judgment and a sufficient number of fitreps indicate this through performance and recommendations, depending on the severity of the problem, the board will give it appropriate consideration. In other words, this was not a “zero defect” selection board. This Selection Board promoted several personnel who bad “stumbled” and recovered.

I. If an individual moves from a higher promotion recommendation to a lower one (EP to Ml’ or Ml’ to P) unless the reasons are explained (i.e., new reporting senior, decrease in the size of the comparison group, etc.) This action will be viewed negatively by the board.

J. Each rating has what It considers assignments that help prepare an individual for Increased authority and responsibility. Candidates with fltreps and records that show they have excelled in these assignments have a definite advantage.

k. Candidates in most ratings need to have a proper mix of sea versus shore duty or an explanation as to why an individual has an over abundance of shore duty.

I. Sometimes senior leadership asks why an individual they reported on was selected. Since Selection Board precepts and the oath we take as Selection Board members does not allow us to comment on individual records or scoring criteria, the answer has always been the same. If a supervisor and/or reporting senior does not feel an individual should be promoted, they need to have the moral courage to document average/below average performance in the fitrep and not second-guess the process when they deny the board ALL the necessary data.

m. Most board members wanted to see a written recommendation for master chief in the comments section of the fitrep.

n. The board looked for “normal” assignment progression within a rating or specialty assignment field. A diverse duty and billet assignment pattern is usually a positive sign, as long as it does not look like the person is hiding from challenging jobs within their rating. Generally speaking, it is not the job you do but how well you don.

o. You don’t always have to been an EP or even an Ml’. There were individuals promoted off this board who were a “P” on their latest fitrep. The board realizes it is very difficult to come into a new command and start off in the upper 50%. Likewise, being a consistent P is not negative. It means you are rated In the top 50% of our comparison group/command.

p. The rank of the reporting senior is not a significant factor in determining the weight of a fitrep. In other words, if the fitrep is well written, it does not matter if an 0-4 or an 0-7 signs it. Conversely, if it is a poorly written fitrep having your admiral sign it will not make it a good fitrep.

Very Respectfully,

M. W. McDaniel

FCCMUSN

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download