ALCGENL 048/19 - ENLISTED EVALUATION SYSTEM (EES) ADMINISTRATION AND UPDATES

united states coast guard

R 17 APR 19
FM COMCOGARD PSC WASHINGTON DC//EPM//

ALCGENL 048/19
SUBJ: ENLISTED EVALUATION SYSTEM (EES) ADMINISTRATION AND UPDATES
A. Enlisted Evaluation System Procedures Manual, PSCINST M1611.2 (series)
B. Enlistments, Evaluations, and Advancements, COMDTINST M1000.2 (series)
C. ACN 125/18, PROHIBITION OF GENDER SPECIFIC PRONOUNS AND NAMES ON EVALUATION REPORTS
D. ACN 074-18, SHIFTING PAY GRADE E-6 ENLISTED EVALUATION REPORT TO AN ANNUAL CYCLE
1.  OVERVIEW. After crossing the one year mark for implementation of the new
Enlisted Evaluation System (EES), this message outlines information, best
practices, and guidance to assist unit rating chains and enlisted personnel
with EES administration. Rating officials are encouraged to implement
local measures to eliminate administrative errors and improve the
timeliness and quality of comments on
Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EER).  Late, missing, or erroneous EERs
may impact a member’s eligibility for the Service Wide Exam, affect
assignment decisions or selection boards and panel outcomes.
2. QUALITY OF COMMENTS ON EER. Refs (A) and (B) require all EERs to
include sufficient comments for any marks of 1, 2, 3 or 7 as well as
Advancement Potential for Not Ready, Not Recommended, the Unsatisfactory
Conduct and Change of Commanding Officers Recommendations (CORCs).
In the past year from March 2018 to December 2018, more than 2,400 EERs
required correction and 32 percent of those returned by EPM-3 were due
to insufficient comments. We anticipated return rates for insufficient
comments to drop as the Service continues to adapt to changes in how
EERs are completed, however, more than 1,000 EERs (14 percent) have
already been returned back to the field to correct discrepancies since
1 January 2019. The top two reasons EERs are returned for corrections:
a. Insufficient or Prohibited Comments: Ref (C) Personal pronouns-gender
identifiable, first names, last names, failure to document a pathway
forward for Not Ready/Not Recommended, lack of articles cited for NJP.
b. Not Approved: admin procedural error when EER is submitted without
being set to “approved” using the AO’s Emplid.
3. BEST PRACTICES AND GUIDANCE.
   a. EER procedures. Ref (A), PSCINST M1611.2, outlines detailed
preparation and processing of EERs and clarifies critical roles of
each member within the rating chain from Evaluee to Commanding Officer
for the successful execution of EES responsibilities.
   b. EER User Guide (Procedures).  The Enlisted Evaluation Reports
guide provides instructions on entering evaluations in Direct Access.
Of 5,300 EERs reviewed by EPM-3 in 2018, 47 percent required administrative
corrections. These corrections, not only increase the admin burden on
commands but delay timely performance feedback to our enlisted members.
Units that have a quality review system in place have significantly fewer
errors, if any at all, and are timely. The process guide can be found
EPM-3’s CG Portal page.
   c. Coast Guard Business Intelligence (CGBI). While CGBI is a valuable
tool to track timeliness, it should not be relied upon entirely. Often
so-called “false positives” are reflected in some metrics. These occur
when a member’s EER status will be listed as overdue, but the lack of an
EER can be justified via policy. Commands are encouraged to carefully
review each individual scenario to establish if EERs are required,
not-required or if an EER waiver is applicable. A recent update correcting
the problem of all E-6’s being reflected as overdue in CGBI after the
release of Ref (D) has been rectified.
   d. Inflation and Deflation. EER comments should demonstrate specific
performance observations and must be included when a member is assigned
a mark of 7. Those assigned the mark of 7 “Superior” must meet all of
the criteria of the 4 “Average” standard and 6 “Excellent” standard and
have clearly described how actual performance exceeded at least one
criteria of the 6 standard. Rating officials should note, a mark of 7
should truly reflect an extraordinary level of effort observed and sustained
throughout the observation period. Conversely, the cultural practice of
“Self Submitted” marks often disadvantage members who have difficulty
describing their own performance, or do not recognize the totality of their
contributory or direct impact on mission performance and execution. 
In an effort to maintain the Integrity of the EES, Rating Chain Officials
should closely examine cognitive biases that impede accurate judgment and
objectivity. Evaluators can be easily and often subconsciously influenced
by past experiences, emotional events and even personal compatibility with
subordinates. An understanding of rater errors and potential biases is
paramount to accurate, fair and repeatable evaluations, ensuring the marks
assigned meet the written criteria for each numerical mark, every time,
for every competency, and on every EER. The evaluation should be an honest
reflection of the member’s performance and behaviors for a relevant period
and nothing more.  Contrasting and comparing members against each other
and then adjusting marking behaviors to normalize averages or adjusting
marks to align with published rating-specific EER point averages based on
annual SWE eligibility data is inconsistent with policy. Units shall not
participate in forced distribution processes.  
   e. Comments for Future Potential Block. The purpose of this newly
created block is to aid assignment officers, selection boards and panels
to make better informed decisions based on the member’s matter of record.
Use succinct comments addressing the member’s potential for positions of
increased responsibility to paint an accurate picture of their talents
and abilities to serve in special, independent, or command cadre
assignments in the current or next higher paygrade. A lack of suitability
for future leadership positions or continued service should also be
addressed in this block accordingly. Under no circumstance should commands
cut and paste the exact same Future Potential for several members within
the same rating chain.
  f. Timeliness. The overall monthly average of EERs not completed within
the prescribed timeframe continues to decrease across all pay grades.
Overdue Coast Guard Enlisted Evaluations are currently reflecting a
remarkable 3 percent service-wide thanks to collaboration with the
Gold Badge Network and Command Senior Enlisted Leaders. The consistently
largest number of untimely EERs continues to be for pay grade E-4 (459/7,520)
and closer attention by Commands is encouraged.
  g. Future Operations. EPM-3 was approved for nine military and three
civilian billets. After increasing staff this summer, EPM-3 intends to
screen 100 percent of all E6-E9 EERs, incrementally expand quality reviews
to all paygrades and assist in future centralized advancement panels for
E8 and E9s.
4.  EES Roadshows and Training. EPM-3 offers a 60-90 minute presentation
titled: “Enlisted Evaluations, a Leadership Conversation” and has recently
conducted dozens of training sessions at major Pacific Area and Atlantic
Area hubs as well as CGHQ. Staff members are available for EER training
in person or by Skype Conference throughout the year based upon availability.
5. Additional information and resources regarding the EES can be found on the
CG PSC-EPM-3 portal page at
https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/psc/psc-epm/SitePages/EPM-3.aspx
6. EPM-3 POC:  LCDR Justin Vanden Heuvel, (202) 795-6381
Justin.O.Vandenheuvel@uscg.mil
7. CAPT S. Matadobra, Chief, Enlisted Personnel Management Division,
CG Personnel Service Center, sends.
8. Internet release authorized.