Cpo fitrep observations
•Download as PPT, PDF•
9 likes•26,562 views
![Purpose/Method ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (19)
Similar to Cpo fitrep observations
Similar to Cpo fitrep observations (20)
More from Tony Astro - Veteran Counselor & Entrepreneur
More from Tony Astro - Veteran Counselor & Entrepreneur (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Cpo fitrep observations
- 1. CPO Fitrep Observations CDR Kevin Robinson
- 7. Active Duty FY-09 Selection Percentages Boards Eligible Selected Percent MCPO 3,097 353 11.40 SCPO 12,568 1356 10.79 CPO 19,738 4,021 20.37 CPO/SCPO/MCPO BOARD
- 16. RECOMMENDATION FOR PROMOTION QUIZ?!?! OR??
- 17. RECOMMENDATION FOR PROMOTION QUIZ?!?! OR?? Good bye kiss
- 20. SAMPLE EVAL Layout *** #1 of 20 OUTSTANDING FIRST CLASS PETTY OFFICERS**** He has my strongest possible recommendation for promotion to CPO or selection for LDO. **NEVERSAIL Sailor of Year for 2008** -PROFESSIONAL MANAGER & LEADER. Planned and executed an aggressive work load for Repair Division during NEVERSAIL limited availability. Through his efforts the division completed 300 work requests, including the installation of 21 reducing/relief isolation valves and the replacement of #2 CHT pump. - EXCEPTIONAL TRAINER. Hand picked as a DCTT member, he provided training and oversight to 40 Sailors in two repair lockers. His dedication significantly contributed to NEVERSAIL Battle E and Red DC awards. -STAND-OUT MENTOR. Dedicated numerous hours in providing sound counsel and guidance to junior personnel, promoting professional growth and development. Under his supervision his division achieved a 80 percent increase in retention and a 90 percent increase in advancement rates. BATTLE PROVEN LEADER already performing at the level of a CPO. PROMOTE NOW!
- 21. SAMPLE EVAL #1 of 20 outstanding first class petty officers. Neversail Sailor of Year for 2008 Planned and executed an aggressive work load for Repair Division during NEVERSAIL limited availability. Through his efforts the division completed 300 work requests, including the installation of 21 reducing/relief isolation valves and the replacement of #2 CHT pump. Hand picked as a DCTT member, he provided training and oversight to 40 Sailors in two repair lockers. His dedication significantly contributed to NEVERSAIL Battle E and Red DC awards. Dedicated numerous hours in providing sound counsel and guidance to junior personnel, promoting professional growth and development. Under his supervision his division achieved a 80 percent increase in retention and a 90 percent increase in advancement rates. Battle proven leader already performing at the level of a CPO. promote now! He has my strongest possible recommendation for promotion to CPO or selection for LDO.
- 22. SAMPLE BULLETS TACTICALLY ADEPT. Qualified as AAWC, normally a CPO or officer position. As a member of CSTT/STT, he helped qualify 3 AICs and 2 CIC watch teams, developed complex combat systems scenarios and increased PQS accomplishment from 40% to 90% in five months. EXCEPTIONAL ADMINISTRATOR . As OPS department 3M assistant, he managed 7 work centers and accomplished 100% RAR and 95% SAR during the most recent 3M certification. CONSUMATE LEADER. Repair 5 locker leader, received the highest grade from ATG instructors of all repair lockers onboard. Provided expert training and guidance to 70 Sailors, resulting in 100% mission readiness. OUTSTANDING LEADER. Petty Officer Smith had a major role in training 5 POs and 24 Seaman ensuring the success of NEVERSAIL’s ARQ, SARCERT, ULTRA-C and UNREP and earning personal recognition from ATGLANT and PAC, NAVSEA and CSD-1. COMMAND WIDE IMPACT. An active member of FPTT, his aggressive attitude was a critical element in NEVERSAIL certifying as self-assess capable in FP early. As line coach, he trained and qualified over 100 Sailors. UNLIMITED POTENTIAL TO EXCEL. Has my complete trust in all areas. Most strongly recommended for IMMEDIATE SELECTION to Chief Petty Officer!
- 23. SAMPLE BULLETS OUTSTANDING OS. Qualified as AAWC, normally a CPO or officer position. ATG recognize OS1 Smith for outstanding performance during the ship’s recent no notice ATG Training Assessment. Because of his performance during a difficult deployment, he earned my complete trust. I want him on watch regardless of the tactical situation. COMMITTED TEACHER. As a member of CSTT/STT, he developed complex combat systems scenarios that qualified 3 AICs and 2 CIC watch teams while increasing PQS accomplishment from 40% to 90% in five months. EXCEPTIONAL SUPERVISOR. As OPS department 3M assistant, he managed 7 work centers and accomplished 100% RAR and 95% SAR during the most recent 3M certification.
- 24. SAMPLE BULLETS OUTSTANDING LEADER . Petty Officer Smith had a major role in training 5 POs and 24 Seaman ensuring the success of NEVERSAIL’s ARQ, SARCERT, ULTRA-C and UNREP and earning personal recognition from ATGLANT and PAC, NAVSEA and CSD-1. COMMAND INVOLVEMENT . Revitalized and streamlined an aggressive ESWS program that lead to over 60% of XXXXX junior Sailors earning quals. SAILOR’S ADVOCATE . Responsible for a 90 percent divisional retention rate; the driving force behind 10 Sailors advancements and one Command Advancement selectee. SUPERB TECHNICIAN . Repaired two major SHF equipment casualties during “XXXXXX” correcting 40% loss in communications capability.
Editor's Notes
- Intro: Next few slides look at the CPO board process and hints on writing evals for the board Just like a statutory promotion boards the CPO board has a precept that directs the board by defining the selection standard.
- Precept selection standard
- Making rate is tough as the stats show: Ensure you have an active CDB Get people on the boards (recorders or board members. Setting your folks up for success and PLANNING to put them in a good position is AS IMPORTANT as the planning we do for officers
- Mechanics of the board Generic score sheets are developed for the board overall and modified for specific ratings. In general, these modifications take into account rating-specific nuances All rating sheets are briefed to the Board President and Board Sponsor for approval Maximum points for an area cannot change, just how you determine those points for a specific rating After the two members score the records and all records are numerically stacked, a “crunch line” is established All members above the crunch line are now reviewed by the whole panel to determine the select/non-select slate Personnel can move up/down within this period What you write and how you quantify it is significant for two reasons: Good quantification gets the candidate into the crunch Well-written articulation can be significant as the panel does the final ranking/selecting
- Collateral duties - While challenging and creates some churn within the command, recommend laying out a plan for command collateral duties and cycling people through. The Sailor who is the PRT Coordinator one year, UAC the next year, and AEWS Coordinator the third year has shown a willingness to branch out and take risk more so that the 3 year PRT Coordinator Being a member of a board has little impact, unless the significance of the membership can be quantiifed Bad – “Active member of the Career Development Board” Good – “Hand selected by the CMDCM and myself to be on one of only three Chiefs (out of 18) to be a permanent member of all CDBs.” What is their leadership impact within the mess? “ Leader within the mess” says nothing “ Volunteered as Committee Chairman for 2009 CPO Transition. Smooth, well-run process which has strengthened my mess.” tells the board a lot more IA - Not enough to just go on an IA. Documented performance AND not lowering a person’s ranking status are important. The C.O. who takes the time to talk about the positive impact of a member on an IA is noticed Example –” Despite the need for Chief Jones within this command, he volunteered for a tough assignment in Iraq. His feedback on the IA mobilization process has been instrumental in making the transition for 3 other personnel who have also been assigned to IAs” GET THEIR AWARDS FOR THE IA TO THE BOARD
- Leadership – Quantifying impact is the key Bad – “Through his efforts this DDG has received the Golden Anchor Award for the past two years” Good – “ Through his direct engagement as Chairman of all CDBs, 9 of 10 Sailors have met PTS requirements, 7 of 8 (88%) E-5s were advanced to E-6 (Flt Avg 30%), and 4 of 6 (66%) E-6’s were advanced to CPO (Flt Avg 33%). Documented perfomance – Remember that technical ability at the SCPO/MCPO level should be a given. The PROMOTABLE of 15 who “has my strongest recommendation for advancement to MCPO” has sent a mixed signal to the board and appears to be written for the member, not the board Accepts responsibilites/collateral duties – Training teams within one’s rating are expected and don’t break someone out Command-wide (or large department-wide) duties and how they are quantified do break someone out and are key Good – “As Command DAPA for this 274 person crew, there has been a 74% decrease in alcohol-related incidents during this reporting period” No good – “As a member of the STT, was instrumental in the successful completion of all ATG events and ISIC NAVCERT
- Speaking of doubt in board members mind: Which officer is number one? Is either officer number one? Is either officer working at the EP level or does neither have the capability to be an EP? Can these questions be answered by the top example with two MP’s? If these officers were equal in every regard I contend that the bottom FITREP is still better and verbiage on the back can explain the difference. As CO’s make the call and write reasons on the back. Board members have been in this situation and they understand the limitations of only having one EP when there are two or more superstars. The comments on the next slide leave no doubt in the members mind about what happened to the MP
- Speaking of doubt in board members mind: Which officer is number one? Is either officer number one? Is either officer working at the EP level or does neither have the capability to be an EP? Can these questions be answered by the top example with two MP’s? If these officers were equal in every regard I contend that the bottom FITREP is still better and verbiage on the back can explain the difference. As CO’s make the call and write reasons on the back. Board members have been in this situation and they understand the limitations of only having one EP when there are two or more superstars. The comments on the next slide leave no doubt in the members mind about what happened to the MP
- Here is another example of FITREP verbiage where the reporting senior leaves no doubt about where this person falls out and what future positions they recommend.
- Recorder : Caution: Be very careful about predicting future rankings. Seeing the prediction, then not following through for WHATEVER REASON can be viewed negatively. Comment: “The rules force me….” and “I am constrained by the eval system” have some merit for small groups, but any group larger than 6 or 7 where this is used doesn’t fly.
- Enlisted board members review between 75-100 records per day. (This is what a panel gets. Each member reviews 10-15 per day). This sample evals shows how to use white space and caps to highlight important information. Get critical information up front (soft breakouts, recommendations and awards). Many times reporting senior believe they must use every space provided in the comments section (show the next slide) Bullets: Headers relate to the precept/score sheet and follow-up with hard facts (especially how it impacts command mission) to support the trait header. Acronyms : Be careful with using acronyms. Engineers and recruiters have a bad habit. For example: Hispanic upper mental level accession goals met or PPR rated as 2.0 during this period. What is PPR and is a 2.0 good?
- Same eval as previous but the layout makes it difficult for the board member to find information.
- Use the first two bullets to illustrate the following: Header trait not tied to the precept/score sheet. Qualified as AAWC but doesn’t explain performance or contribution to the command. Combined two different accomplishments under the same header. “ helped qualified” is weak. “ Exceptional Administrator” is also weak. We don’t need administrators
- Revised first two bullets from the previous slide
- Summary points: Use headers, caps and white space to help board members see the important information. For CPO boards scoring is focused on being above the summary group. Soft breakouts when playing in traffic Tie important traits such as leadership, technical skills, or mentoring to mission accomplishment/contribution. Don’t forget that watchstanding and collateral duties (President of the First Class Association) can help demonstrate those traits and contributions. Use the comment section to discuss major collateral duties and community leadership positions only (i.e. President of the PTA) otherwise use block 29 and 44 to list.