Return to the "POINTER VIEW"
                         May 24, 2002

Army refines current OER system

_{By Joe Burlas}

WASHINGTON (Army News Service) -- Though the latest version of the officer evaluation report is working the way it is supposed to, according to personnel managers, refinements to the OER system are on the way.

Approved refinements include: revising the rater portion of the report to separate performance and potential remarks; "masking" all lieutenant OERs upon promotion to captain; reviewing the possibility of masking chief warrant officer 2 OERs upon promotion to chief warrant officer 3; emphasizing current counseling and mentoring obligations; and conducting an annual assessment of the system.

The refinements are based on the recommendations of an eight-month review of the OER system that ended in April.

"The officer evaluation report is doing the job it was designed to do -- that is, to assess the performance and potential of officers in a manner that provides an effective tool to identify, assign and select the best qualified officers for promotion, education and command," said George Piccirilli, Total Army Personnel Command officer evaluation system chief. "We know the OER is providing selection boards the information they need to select the leaders the Army needs."

Piccirilli should know how well the OER system is doing the job it was designed to do as he briefs each officer board on the OER and reviews selections results and board surveys when the board concludes. He said he has gotten a lot of feedback in the last year that board members find it difficult to separate the rater performance remarks from potential ones as both are entered in the same section of the OER. To alleviate that confusion, PERSCOM will soon put out a message to double space between performance and potential comments until the actual OER form can be revised and fielded.

The OER review was prompted in part by the officer Army Training and Leader Development Panel, released last May, that reported a perception in the field that Army culture expected a zero-defects performance of its leaders. The officer ATLDP also found a perception that a "center-of-mass" check on the OER by the senior rater meant no possibility of promotion beyond captain.

Center-of mass-ratings are not a killer, Piccirilli said, and promotion board results have always bore that out.
Statistics from fiscal year 2001 boards show that the majority of officers selected for promotion to major, lieutenant colonel and colonel had a mix of center-of-mass and above-center-of-mass reports. Only about 10 percent of the officers considered for major, lieutenant colonel and colonel had all above-center-of-mass OERs when their boards met.

A senior rater’s ability to give above-center-of-mass ratings is limited by regulation to no more than 49 percent of the reports rendered in a particular grade, thus ensuring reports do not get inflated, Piccirilli said.

As part of the OER review, senior leaders and surveyed junior officers were offered alternatives to the senior rater portion of current OER. Almost all chose to remain with the current system, Piccirilli said.

Piccirilli further stated feedback from selection boards clearly indicates that board members weigh an officers’ entire file during deliberations, factoring in the officers’ assignment history, career progression and evaluation reports.