Cpo fitrep observations

26,370 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
8 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
26,370
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
287
Comments
0
Likes
8
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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.
  • Cpo fitrep observations

    1. 1. CPO Fitrep Observations CDR Kevin Robinson
    2. 2. Purpose/Method <ul><li>Slides that follow are a combination of a NPC slideshow given to C.O.’s and observations of personnel with previous enlisted board experience. </li></ul><ul><li>Slides with have the NPC logo are the standard slides from PERS-3 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RED font comments are additional observations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Slides with no logos have been added to provide observation or recommendations. </li></ul>
    3. 3. General Comments <ul><li>Most C.O.’s do not understand the CPO/SCPO/MCPO selection board process. </li></ul><ul><li>As a result, key information and is often missing. </li></ul><ul><li>While the opening and closing statements are as important as in officer fitreps, the old adage that the “stuff in between is just fluff” is not true regarding enlisted evals. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant time is spent reading these words </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What you say and HOW YOU QUANTIFY can have significant impact </li></ul></ul><ul><li>At the SCPO/MCPO level, it is assumed they are technical experts. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What sets selectees apart at this level is leadership within the mess, command-wide impact on Sailors, and willingness to step up and assume responsibility outside one’s rating </li></ul></ul><ul><li>General and flowery comments are a waste of precious lines in the comments section </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I pray to King Neptune every day to thank him for sending me this sea granite.” ?????????? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A strong player within the mess.” (How so? What does he do in there?) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Talking about the ship’s accomplishments without directly tying it to the member’s contribution to the accomplishments is a waste of space </li></ul><ul><li>Stop blaming the “constraints of the fitrep system” on where you break someone out </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Exceptions are in small-number groups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Soft breakouts on 1 of 1 fitreps are important, especially on transfer fitreps </li></ul><ul><li>Read the precept from past boards to understand and reinforce this info </li></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><ul><li>Precept </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Convening order to the board President </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provides approved membership </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Number of quotas per rate </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defines selection standard </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Selection considerations and guidance </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>CPO/SCPO/MCPO BOARD
    5. 5. CPOSCPO/MCPO BOARD <ul><li>Selection standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Best and fully qualified definition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>First Line Leadership </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Education/Personal and Professional Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Competency/Skill Information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rating knowledge-impact to mission success </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teaching </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Communication skills </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contributions to division/departmental achievements </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Special Duty Assignment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instructor duty </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recruit duty </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RDC </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Detailer </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Language, Regional Expertise and Culture Experience </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Navy Special Warfare Experience </li></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><ul><li>Board Membership setup in panels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Approximately 20 panels for record review: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 - O-5 (and a LDO/CWO on large panels) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3-10 - Master Chiefs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Related Ratings and Special Qualifications Where Possible </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Admin Panel Surf Hull/Eng Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aviation Panel Intel/Crypto Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aviation Maintenance Panel Seabee Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avionics Panel Spec War Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IT Panel Supply Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering Panel Surf Deck/Ops Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health Care Panel Weapons Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nuc Sub Panel Surface ET Panel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Surface Tactics Panel Fwd Sub Panel </li></ul></ul>CPO BOARD
    7. 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
    8. 8. CPO BOARD <ul><li>(1) Score Sheets Graded </li></ul><ul><li>Two panel members score </li></ul><ul><li>Scores are averaged </li></ul><ul><li>Differential set point </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Third member reviews </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(2) Slate Created </li></ul><ul><li>Panel “rack and stack” eligibles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rank by score </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sanity check </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eligibles close to the quota cut off </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(3) Tanking </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Panel presents slate to the board </li></ul><ul><ul><li>By rating </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Board membership confirm/ not confirm panel recommendation </li></ul><ul><li>Slate gender neutral with candidates not identified </li></ul>
    9. 9. Grading <ul><li>Generic score sheets are developed for the board overall and modified for specific ratings. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In general, these modifications take into account rating-specific nuances </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All rating sheets are briefed to the Board President and Board Sponsor for approval </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maximum points for an area cannot change, just how you determine those points for a specific rating </li></ul></ul><ul><li>After the two members score the records and all records are numerically stacked, a “crunch line” is established </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All members above the crunch line are now reviewed by the whole </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>panel to determine the select/non-select slate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personnel can move up/down within this period </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What you write and how you quantify it is significant for two reasons: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Good quantification gets the candidate into the crunch </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Well-written articulation can be significant as the panel does the final ranking/selecting </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. CPO BOARD <ul><li>Score Sheet used for grading (precept) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance Eval </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Promotion recommendation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Performance mark relative to summary group </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership/Sailorization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Narrative/performance documented/achievement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Accept responsibilities/collateral duties </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Career History </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Operational vs. Non-Operational (Sea-Shore) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Arduous duty or command deployments – IA, Unit deployment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Special qualifications </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Awards (more points in current pay grade) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community involvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adverse information (NJP, PFA or missed quals) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential Subjective </li></ul></ul>Approx. 65% total score Tie-breakers
    11. 11. CPO BOARD <ul><ul><li>Other considerations and factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collateral Duties (esp. command-wide w/mission impact) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3M Coordinator </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PRT Coordinator </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Urinalysis Coordinator </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Professional Development Board </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Overseas and Arduous Duty </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Individual Augmentation (IA) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Superior performance, even if outside of normal career path. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership in Diverse Organizations </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Important Information <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Being a member of a board has little impact, unless the significance of the membership can be quantiifed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bad – “Active member of the Career Development Board” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is their leadership impact within the mess? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Leader within the mess” says nothing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Volunteered as Committee Chairman for 2009 CPO Transition. Smooth, well-run process which has strengthened my mess.” tells the board a lot more </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>IA - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not enough to just go on an IA. Documented performance AND not lowering a person’s ranking status are important. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The C.O. who takes the time to talk about the positive impact of a member on an IA is noticed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>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” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GET THEIR AWARDS FOR THE IA TO THE BOARD </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. CPO BOARD <ul><ul><li>Scoring the Eligible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Evals document performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotion Recommendation (Hard and soft breakouts) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consistent? Improving? Declining? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>One of one versus competitive peer group </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Duties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Job scope, leadership and level of responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Including collateral duties (Leads Peers?) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Impact of position on command mission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficult/Arduous Duty? Increased responsibilities? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mentoring-positive impact on retention and Sailor growth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rating knowledge- impact on command </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Narrative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does write-up support marks and promotion recommendation? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Accomplishments to results (quantitative) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contributions to unit mission and morale </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Retention and advancement results </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Scoring the Eligible <ul><li>Leadership – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantifying impact is the key </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bad – “Through his efforts this DDG has received the Golden Anchor Award for the past two years” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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%). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Documented perfomance – Remember that technical ability at the SCPO/MCPO level should be a given. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accepts responsibilites/collateral duties – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Training teams within one’s rating are expected and don’t break someone out </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Command-wide (or large department-wide) duties and how they are quantified do break someone out and are key </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good – “As Command DAPA for this 274 person crew, there has been a 74% decrease in alcohol-related incidents during this reporting period” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No good – “As a member of the STT, was instrumental in the successful completion of all ATG events and ISIC NAVCERT </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. CPO BOARD <ul><li>Professional Maturity and Experience </li></ul><ul><ul><li>History of assignments (normal sea/shore rotation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diversity of duty (FFG, CVN, LHA, Forward Deployed) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Out of rate assignments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Warfare Qualifications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Warfare designators can be attained, it is a requirement to qualify </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Special Qualifications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NAC, MTS, ATS, EOOW, or CSOW </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Awards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal awards in current pay grade carries more weight </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Education - Schools, Courses, etc </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced degree </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional Military Education (“A” school, NECs) </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. RECOMMENDATION FOR PROMOTION QUIZ?!?! OR??
    17. 17. RECOMMENDATION FOR PROMOTION QUIZ?!?! OR?? Good bye kiss
    18. 18. WRITTEN COMMENTS (BLOCK 41) <ul><li>Opening : </li></ul><ul><li>“ Read as an EP, ranked against the XO .” </li></ul><ul><li>“ My top JO ranked against Department Heads.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ First report as CDR” </li></ul><ul><li>“ My first report on this outstanding officer” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Ranked 2 of 10 hand picked active duty officers.” </li></ul><ul><li>Closing : </li></ul><ul><li>“ He has my strongest endorsement and recommendation for major command. In addition, he has earned my strongest possible recommendation for accelerated promotion to captain now.” </li></ul>
    19. 19. WRITTEN COMMENTS (Block 41) <ul><li>“ Read this carefully…the rules force me to make him only a Must Promote. He is an Early Promote! He is rated against another O-X who I anticipate will be promoted. Joe’s turn is next. Joe would truly be number one in any other setting.” </li></ul>
    20. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
    25. 25. SUMMARY-NARRATIVE <ul><li>Use headers, Caps and white space </li></ul><ul><li>Summary Group vs. RSCA </li></ul><ul><li>Accomplishments-mission impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership, technical, mentoring/teaching, communication, teamwork or potential </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Training Team (i. e. DCTT) impact </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Major collateral duties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3M Coordinator, PRT Coordinator, Urinalysis Coordinator, Professional Development Board </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Community Involvement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrates leadership </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. Recommended Layout for SCPOs/MCPOs <ul><li>NUMBER 1 OF 4 SCPO’S IN THIS COMMAND </li></ul><ul><li>FROM CMDCM - - “MY GO-TO CPO WITHIN THE MESS WHO CLEARLY OUT-PERFORMS ALL OTHERS” </li></ul><ul><li>LEADERSHIP. Through his direct engagement as Chairman of all CDBs, 9 of 10 Sailors have met PTS requirements, 7 of 8 (88%) E- </li></ul><ul><li>5 were advanced to E-6 (Flt Avg 30%), and 4 of 6 (66%) E-6’s were advanced to CPO (Flt Avg 33%). </li></ul><ul><li>OUTSTANDING OS. Qualified as AAWC, normally an officer position. As a member of CSTT/STT, he was the key to qualifying 3 </li></ul><ul><li>AICs and 2 CIC watch teams, developed complex combat systems scenarios and increased PQS accomplishment from 40% to </li></ul><ul><li>90% in five months. My best AAWC, he is the General Quarters AAWC because I trust him most to fight the ship if needed. </li></ul><ul><li>EXCEPTIONAL SUPERVISOR. As OPS department 3M assistant, he managed 7 work centers and accomplished 100% RAR </li></ul><ul><li>And 95% SAR during the most recent 3M certification. Department achieved certification during initial assessment. </li></ul><ul><li>COMMITTED MENTOR. Has taken on the role as mentor to seven Chief Petty Officers who had previously been struggling. As a </li></ul><ul><li>result, Engineering Department was able to certify EOC at ULTRA-E, freeing up 6 weeks of training time from a tight schedule. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>MISSION FOCUSED. Volunteered as Command PRT Coordinator. Reduced PRT failures from 14% to 3% in 6 six months. </li></ul><ul><li>UNLIMITED POTENTIAL TO EXCEL. Has my complete trust in all areas. Most strongly recommended for IMMEDIATE SELECTION </li></ul><ul><li>To Master Chief Petty Officer and Command Senior Chief/CMDCM Programs! </li></ul>

    ×