Here's a couple of additional [serious] comments on this topic. If you want to learn how to write good FITREP's you should immediately contact your community manager and volunteer to be an assistant recorder on a statutory selection board or command screen board. During your time as a recorder you'll see two things up close--(1) hundreds of FITREPS from all officer communities, and (2) a bunch of senior officers slicing and dicing FITREPS into digestible briefing chunks for the sessions in the "tank." At the end of the week (or two) you will know more than you ever thought possible about how to write, what's important to write about, and how to manage a wardroom of officers so that those that deserve to play another day can do so without becoming cannon fodder for each other.
It's good to know that the Navy/USMC performance evaluation system is just a jacked up as the USAF's. In the "ironed flight suit and scarf" service, our performance reports consist of both an objective and subjective system. In the objective system, there are 5 or so categories that you are simply marked "Meets Standards" or "Does Not Meet Standards". This means that the objective system -- the comments -- are required to adhere to all the same buzzword rules, having strong first and last lines, and stratifications that it sound like the USN/USMC ones must. The USAF's current myopic point of attention is on numeric stratification (e.g. #1 of 69), so this leads to some rather creative ways of determining this stratification when writing reports.
As a FASO OIC signing evals for my PO1s: "Ranks 20 of 15 PO1s assigned to the detachment" "There are at least 5 PO1s not assigned to this detachment who provide greater service to fulfilling our mission than this Sailor." I ran it by the CO first, he said to go for it.
Slight course correction: I did one enlisted eval that included the following in the write-up: "Airman **** is conspicuous by virtue of his repeated absences" ... The CO liked it .... Airman **** agreed w/ it; but he did NOT like the 13th Naval District Brig that I sent him to, however ... /slight course correction ...
I always liked "Well rounded" Body fat percentage 26%. Back in the day when body fat percentage was reported in block 20 of enlisted eval. Not mine! I also have an eval (my own) that reports on the very top line "Sailor of the Year". Then the very next line says no shit "Number two of fifteen outstanding First Class Petty Officers". Didn't make Chief that year! Do NOT do that to your people, there can only be one "number one" trying to fool the board only makes you look stooopid. And probably makes them say WTF, NEXT!
The USMC's is at least better than THAT. The comments mean a lot, but the marks for RS and RO are marked on a 7 point scale in 14 categories. The marks on an individual are rated against that RS or RO's historical average so that inflation is largely taken out of the picture.
Fair enough for those of you who will be writing O evals anytime soon. For those of us who will sign off E evals in the semi-near future, is there any good guidance? Or is the verbage similar? Have never really seen either in detail....
Rule #1: Ruthlessly manage your reporting senior average. Once you start writing evaluations, it's tracked for the rest of your career by BUPERS. Don't be all over the map with your grading. Rule #2: Cuffs and collars need to match--meaning that the promotion recommendation, narrative comments, and performance mark average should track together. Rule #3: Have a plan for how to manage the evaluation process for your Sailors. It's perfectly fine for a good Sailor to start off with a P or MP evaluation as long as you know you'll have the time and available slots to progress them from left to right on the form--P to EP. The Chief's board expects that. Rule #4: Do the numerical breakout on all your EP's and the top 3 or 4 MP's in the narrative section. It's another way to show progression in performance and it's expected by the Chief's board. Rule #5: Get your CMC to put in a chit to be a member of the Chief's board. Great gouge abounds from that experience.
Sat on a board and the member are not allowed to discuss what occurred during that board. We can discuss our thoughts on what made a good FitRep/Eval and what didn't. So if you can talk to someone who sat on a board, they can probably give you some gouge, just don't ask them what happened during the board they sat. On a side note, I almost got; "Don't wait, name an aircraft carrier after him now" by the CO. The Skipper said he was happy with the inputs he recieved and wouldn't be changing any of them. The XO then spoke up and said, "Sir, did you read Lumpy's input completely???"
COC FITREPs are coming up.. Due to my situation, I'm pretty much thinking of doing a British Style FITREP. Anyone have ideas beyond what has been posted here?
Toughest time I ever had writing evals was as First Lt on a frigate. 12 E-3 and belows in 1st Div, maybe 3 genuinely good and 3 shitbirds - those were easy to write. Struggling to wordsmith, "shows up on time, chips and paints and keeps his mouth shut" for the other six was a challenge. There are only so many synonyms for vanilla.
I once got a "highly motivated for a foreign exchange pilot tour" ... it started out as highly recommended for... but was changed....to my chagrin...
While it does not take effect until periodic LT FITREPs... I have a feeling I may regress from a MP to a P this cycle, as we try to "get ahead of the curve"..
Is it better to hear the pain train whistle coming with it's higher pitch due to Doppler shift, or to remain ignorant until it hits you?
That's the beauty of NavAirRes... you can be to the pain train as those folks out in Cali who moon Amtrak every year.
LT XXXXX is a large presence in my command. He is a fixture in my ready room. - OUTSTANDING LEADER AND MANAGER. Led squadron through TWO Maintenance Program Assists, the first of which was outstanding and the second being the best MPA since 2005 in all of COMACCLOGWING. So of course, he got an MP below COs average for his troubles. - TACTICALLY RELEVANT. Completed his qualifications for Carrier Aircraft Plane Commander in record time, and achieved in qualification in normal time, only three months longer than his non previous aircraft commander peers. Has now "Seen Enough". - HIGHLY EFFICIENT. Would have submitted this report written as "Submitted for Continuity Purposes Only" but was forced to write an actual FITREP contrary to AIRSPEED Lean Six Sigma practices. - NAVY STRONG. Able to lift ungodly weights, making himself invaluable during the hangar move. PRs: Squat-405, Deadlift-495, Bench-315. This Officer is not a has-been, but more of a won't-be due to year group shuffles coupled with poor career timing and reduced promotion opportunity. He is again being used to manage my average on his final LT FITREP. Marks not commensurate with performance. HAS MY STRONGEST POSSIBLE RECCOMENDATION FOR IMMEDIATE TRANSFER TO THE IRR.
