I believe if you read the post directly above yours you will find the answer......

But is it right to take away a award point from someone before they even have the chance to use it. You could get a LOC or Good Conduct weeks before you know you will advance and it instantly dissapears.

As guns said, I was clear about the current stance.

Is it right? Well obviously you are searching for an opinion there. So here is MINE. In my opinion, it isn't right to give a point EVER for a Good Conduct any more. A GC is pretty much just a TIS issue. Anyone who looses it will not be competitive in the SWE cycle until just about the time they get another one anyways. So the rest of the folks who do have their GC are just competing against a timeline.

Now, as for the other examples, I can easily relate that to other parts of the SWE multiple system. Lets say you get 24 7's on your advancement marks to Chief. Ya know what - that doesn;t do you a BIT of good for your SCPO SWE! Why - becuase you got those 7s as a PO1 and they should NOT and DO NOT count for your competition for SCPO.

Don't think of it as something being 'taken away' or 'lost'. When competing for advancement, you compete based upon the Sea/Surf time you had in your current grade and the awards recieved in that grade!

quote:

it isn't right to give a point EVER for a Good Conduct any more.

MC, I couldn't agree more. The original rationale for assigning points to GC was lost with the transition to an all volunteer force. During the draft, not every SR signed up out of a desire to serve or a sense of duty. Not a few were in the service only as a last resort (sometimes judicially imposed) and their attitude and conduct were frequently disruptive. Consequently, since much conduct disqualifying for a GC was not disqualifying for advancement (the billet structure WILL be manned), good conduct was valued and rewarded in the multiple.

Why doesn't anyone address the real weak link in the advancement system - the CO's Recommendation? I pray that the reason is that things are now different than in my day. That is, that each Recommendation is truly earned and that it's potential consequences have been reflected upon by the issuer, rather than being viewed as a 'right' of the individual to be denied in only the most egregious cases. Or worse yet, as was often the case in my observation, the CO believed the individual unqualified but wanted the 'system' to tell him so that the CO could retain the individual's good opinion and effort at work. And many who complain that unqualified individuals are advanced want to blame the evals, or the SWE, or some other multiple component instead of asking how the person got into the exam room in the first place.

The fundamental assumption underlying the whole system is that all candidates are qualified and the task is to sort out the most qualified; not to ID the unqualified.

v/r - jb

Nope, it is the most broken part of the system. Weak spines abound. Misperceptions abound. BUT the manual is clear! (for those who have read it in the last 17 years)

"..member is fully capable of performing the duties and responsiblities of the next higher grade..." I bolded the most often missied word. It doesn't say 'might be if he actually does good enough to maybe make it,' it says is.

Now - probably 7 of the next 10 posts are gonns cry 'bring back progressing.'

quote:

"..member is fully capable of performing the duties and responsiblities of the next higher grade..." I bolded the most often missied word. It doesn't say 'might be if he actually does good enough to maybe make it,' it says is.

And if the member hasn't done a damm thing demonstrating they can do the next grade by completing their PQS, and hasn't accepted more responsibilities expected of the next grade, Why should we mark them as recommended? Why do detailer's use the recommended/not recommended as a discriminator when comparing two equally qualified candidates? Do they verify the member has completed all the requirements of the next grade (PQS/EPME/EOCT ... etc)?

The Personnel manual doesn't allow you to not recommend because of incompletion of a PQS.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JoeJester,

quote:

The Personnel manual doesn't allow you to not recommend because of incompletion of a PQS.

Not really true. Just becuase they are seperate issues does not mean they are not related. If they CAN NOT PERFORM the tasks in the EPQs, and THAT is why they are not done, you absoloutley give them a NR. You click NR and you write "member has clearly demonstarted the inability to perform those task required of a XY2 and has further shown no incentive to learn them and is NR."

And no - the AOs do not verify those items. They have no way to do all of them short of calling evry single supervisor. When my AOs handle over 1000 members a piece, that is just not realistic. They DO read the Command Endorsements though. And they do look at evals.

to save folks time:

RECOMMENDED. The member is fully capable of satisfactorily performing
the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade. The rating chain
should choose this entry regardless of the member’s qualification or eligibility
for advancement. If the member has met all eligibility requirements, choosing this value constitutes an official recommendation for advancement. Personnel,
E-6 and above, must receive a supporting remarks entry clearly documenting
their present and future leadership potential for greater responsibility Article
10.B.2.a.(1)(e).

That DOES NOT PREVENT YOU from choosing NR becuase the EPQs are not done.

Phil,

No it does not prevent you from doing it, but, I highly doubt the Marking Official and Approving official will see it that way.

quote:

10.B.7.2.a. RECOMMENDED

The member is fully capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade. The rating chain should choose this entry regardless of the member’s qualification or eligibility for advancement. If the member has met all eligibility requirements, choosing this value constitutes an official recommendation for advancement. Personnel, E-6 and above, must receive a supporting remarks entry clearly documenting their present and future leadership potential for greater responsibility Article 10.B.2.a.(1)(e).

The highlighted portion is a feel good for those who haven't done a damm thing towards advancing to the next grade. When they do complete, it is an official recommendation. Now, when they have everything done, and your not satisfied with their performance or question their performance at a higher grade, you must mark not recommended. Next comes the all important question from the person you've been coddling all along ... how come you gave me a not recommended when for the past two years, you gave me recommended? You are in an untenable position by recommending them for those previous evaluations.

quote:

And no - the AOs do not verify those items. They have no way to do all of them short of calling evry single supervisor. When my AOs handle over 1000 members a piece, that is just not realistic. They DO read the Command Endorsements though. And they do look at evals.

No they don't, but, when someone was truthful and put not recommended, a detailer has used that in the past as a discriminating factor, so the billet was filled by someone who looked good on paper. Juxtaposing the paper person and the real person led the OIC to see the paper person was a fantacy.

I have had a detailer inquire about an evaluation mark of "3" I've given one of my charges. I asked her if she was taking that counseling tool out of my hands. I recommended the guy for a PO2 billet because of his technical abilities, and that three was to remind my PO of his other responsibilities ... because he didn't gardner all the criteria of the four column.

quote:

I highly doubt the Marking Official and Approving official will see it that way.

I am with you on that part. That was the hiding background behind my 'if they had read it' comment.