ALCGENL 200/19 - ENLISTED EVALUATION SYSTEM (EES) FY19 REVIEW

united states coast guard

24 OCT 19

ALCGENL 200/19
SUBJ: ENLISTED EVALUATION SYSTEM (EES) FY19 REVIEW
A. Enlisted Evaluation System Procedures Manual, PSCINST M1611.2 (series)
B. Enlistments, Evaluations, and Advancements, COMDTINST M1000.2 (series)
C. ALCGENL 048/19, ENLISTED EVALUATION SYSTEM (EES) ADMINISTRATION AND UPDATES
D. ACN 125/18, PROHIBITION OF GENDER SPECIFIC PRONOUNS AND NAMES ON EVALUATION REPORTS
1. This message outlines information, best practices, and guidance to assist unit rating chains and
enlisted personnel with EES administration. Per ref. (A) figure 4-1, EPM-3 will start enforcing the
“92/184 Day Rule”. Members will be required to be observed for a minimum of 92/184 days (depending
on paygrade) before being evaluated for any reason, other than discipline. Rating officials are
encouraged to implement local measures to eliminate administrative errors and improve the timeliness
and quality of comments on EERs. 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 Future Potential, Advancement Potential for Not Ready, Not
Recommended, Unsatisfactory Conduct and Change of Commanding Officers Recommendations
(CORCs). In FY19, 27 percent of EERs returned by EPM-3 were due to insufficient or unauthorized
comments. We anticipate return rates for insufficient comments to drop as the Service continues to
adapt to changes in how EERs are completed. The second most common reason for return is an admin
procedural error when an EER is submitted without being set to “Approved” status using the Approving
Official’s EMPLID.
3. Best Practices and Guidance.
a. EER Procedures: Ref (A), 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 Direct Access (DA) Guide:  The EER guide provides instructions on entering evaluations in Direct
Access. Of 16,711 EERs validated by EPM-3 in 2019, 1,003 required administrative corrections. These
corrections, not only increase the administrative 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 DA guide can be found on EPM-3’s CG Portal page.
c. “Not Ready” or ”Not Recommended” Guidance: Per ref (B) ”Not Ready” shall be used if the member is
performing satisfactorily but has not completed requirements for the next pay grade. The comments
must list a pathway forward to include specific requirements such as EPQ/RPQ, EPME 2.0 or rating
competency code (e. g. if member is a BMC, they must have the Officer in Charge (OIC) competency in
order to be marked “Ready” for E-8). Vague comments such as “Practical factors not completed” are
insufficient. Required time in grade/service must not be considered when determining overall eligibility
for advancement. “Not Recommended” is typically punitive in nature. If a service member is being
processed for discharge it must be stated. The rating chain is required to list what specific criteria the
member has not met and outline a pathway forward to earn the CO’s recommendation for
advancement. A member need not be awarded NJP in order to be marked “Not Recommended” based
on documented poor performance, lack of maturity or inability to secure trust and confidence of the
rating chain to perform at the next higher pay grade. No eligibility requirements for advancement must
be considered for EERs for members in paygrade E-1 through E-3 (e.g. A non-rate must not be marked as
“Not Ready” or “Not Recommended” for the sole reason of not being Boat Crew and/or Boarding Team
qualified). IAW CIM 1500.10C.Ch7.G.3.f, A CO/OINC “Shall not impose local unit requirements hindering
placement on members chosen Class “A” School waiting list." Furthermore, members must not be
marked as “Not Ready” or “Not Recommended” due to the sole reason of Medical status, pending
Retirement/RELAD, and/or placement on weight probation.
d. Alcohol Incident/Drug Incident Guidance:
[1] Alcohol Incident (AI): Submission of Disciplinary EER is required for a member who has an AI with an
effective date of the day of the incident regardless of the date it is determined an AI occurred. If the
member was awarded NJP or Court Martial in conjunction with the AI, the Command shall send a
memorandum to EPM-3 to update the initial discipline EER to reflect the finding of the NJP or charges.
The effective date for the Discipline EER remains unchanged.
[2] Drug Incident (DI): Once a Command is notified of a positive urinalysis result, a recommended course
of action is to immediately complete a CORC with an effective date of the findings. Provide detailed
comments in the Advancement Recommendation block; (e.g., pending investigation). If the member is
due for regular EERs, the command may mark the member “Not Recommended” pending investigation.
Commands are encouraged to reach out to EPM-1, EPM-2 and EPM-3 upon DI for further guidance.
e. Commanding Officer Recommendation Change (CORC) Guidance: The most common error made
when completing a CORC EER is the selection of the member's paygrade as the rating scale. Be sure to
enter "CORC" instead. If done correctly, the only available field for entry in the reviewers tab is
advancement potential. If changing a recommendation of "Not Recommended" or "Not Ready" to allow
a member to take the SWE, ensure that the CORC is dated prior to the applicable Service Wide Exam
Eligibility Date (SED). If entering a CORC after the SED, a trouble ticket must be submitted to PPC
Customer Care during the PDE correction period requesting a manual update to the member’s Personal
Data Extract (PDE). Additionally, a CORC cannot be used to overturn the advancement recommendation
of a Discipline EER. The member will be marked at the end of the next scheduled regular EER cycle or
authorized unscheduled EER occasion. Furthermore, if a “Not Recommended” was given by another
Command/AO, the new Command/AO cannot overturn with a CORC and must wait for the next regular
marking period.
f. Service Wide Exam (SWE) EER Guidance: SWE EERs are used for members that are ineligible to
compete for the SWE due to a missing EER in their current paygrade. This most often occurs if the
member has recently advanced. If, however, the member received a prior EER in their current paygrade
with an Advancement Recommendation of “Not Ready/Not Recommended”, a CORC is required to
update the member to a “Ready” status, not a SWE EER. When completing SWE EER, ensure the
Effective date is on or before the Service Wide Exam Eligibility Date (SED), as per ref (B). SWE EER’s are
not authorized to overturn a previous Discipline EER’s recommendation for advancement. A SWE EER is
not authorized if member has not been observed for 92/184 days.
g. Changes and Waivers Guidance:
[1] EER Changes: Commands wishing to change numerical marks, conduct mark or CO's
recommendation for advancement after an EER has been submitted in the EEMS, will follow the
procedures in 4.E.2 of Ref B. It is important to note that both the member and Approving Official must
still be attached to the same unit unless a waiver has been granted. A template can be found on EPM-3’s
CG Portal Page.
[2] EER Waivers: Occasionally it is either impossible to evaluate an evaluee; (e.g., the member was an
inpatient or on convalescent leave during entire period, or an evaluation report period is overlooked
administratively). In these and similar situations the approving official can submit a request to EPM-3,
seeking a waiver of the entire period by memo, specifying the reasons. Waivers may also be submitted
to extend EER appeal timeframes; designate officers to act as Approving Officials who do not meet the
criteria of Table 2-2 of Ref (A); or other scenarios not covered in Refs (A) and (B). A template can be
found on EPM-3's CG Portal Page.
h. Service Wide Exam (SWE) Personal Data Extract (PDE) Correction Period Guidance: This is a correction
period, not an action period. Commands are reminded to submit updates/waivers before the SWE
Eligibility Date (SED) per ref (B). It is the member’s responsibility to verify the SWE PDE once released by
PPC. For example, if a member has not completed LAMS or lacks required Sea Time for advancement,
submit waiver requests before the SED, not during the SWE PDE correction period. (e.g. If a member
plans to take the May SWE, but has not completed LAMS (even if they plan to attend LAMS before
taking the SWE). A waiver must be submitted to PPC before 01 February of exam year. If the waiver is
submitted on 02 February it will be denied and member will be ineligible for the SWE.) Waivers
submitted after the SED will render the member ineligible to take the SWE.
i. “92/184 Day Rule” Guidance: Enlisted Personnel are required to be evaluated either semi-annually or
annually depending on their pay grade. Members E-5 and below shall be marked on a semi-annual basis
(following 92 day rule). Members E-6 and above shall be marked on an annual basis (following 184 day
rule). EERs shall not be submitted if the member has not been observed for a minimum of 92/184 days.
Members may not receive two separate EERs within the 92/184 day timeline unless for discipline. (e.g. If
member was an E-4 and marked for their Regular EER in March, and advances on 01 June, then transfers
on 15 June, you do not complete an advancement or transfer set of marks. It has not been more than 92
days since their last set of marks. Furthermore, the same member reports to a new unit on 01 July, you
cannot complete a SWE EER on this member. The member has not been attached or observed for 92
days. The reason behind this rule is to allow members and commands to observe for an adequate time
to allow fair and accurate evaluation.) If the circumstances require a member to receive unscheduled
EER, follow the guidance of Ref (B).
j. EPM-3 continues to see requests for similar-type unit comparisons of evaluations. These requests are
counterintuitive to accomplishing Coast Guard policy which requires rating chains to always measure
performance using a behavioral anchored rating scale (BARS). The best way to ensure accurate, fair, and
repeatable evaluations for Enlisted members is to ensure the marks assigned in each EER meet the
written criteria for each numerical mark every time, for every competency, on every EER. EER’s should
be a true reflection of the member’s performance and behavior for a relevant period and nothing more.
4. EES Roadshows and Training. EPM-3 offers a 60-90 minute presentation titled “Enlisted Evaluations, a
Leadership Conversation”. Staff members are available to conduct EER training in person or by Skype
Conference throughout the year based on availability. As of October 2019, EPM-3 is fully staffed with
nine (9) active duty military members who are tasked with managing approximately 59,000 EERs
submitted annually for 38,000 active duty and reserve members.
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.