Promotion and Evaluation Forms

[TruBlu]

With the organizational restructuring of my unit and an increased sensitivity to the way my unit has been operating and the awareness of how the actual military operates, myself and a small collection of others have begun an endeavor to not only change the way we look, but the way we operate. One of the biggest issues in my unit, and most others, are the circumstances that surround a unit's ability to effectively promote and evaluate cadets. I believe that we (by we I am referring to myself and that small collection of others) have found a viable solution to the issue. I would like to share it with all of you because I would like to open up the 'solution' to public criticism before we implement it within my unit. Also, if it works, I would be more than happy for you guys/gals to 'borrow' the idea and physical subject matter to solve/improve the issue of promotions and evaluations in your own units. If you guys/gals find any flaws in our system, post them up so we can examine, discuss, and solve them. This way we can form the 'perfect' system. Of course this idea is built around the Air Force and AFJROTC, but the base principles will still be viable for implementation in AJROTC, NJROTC, MCJROTC, and CGJROTC. Also, to accommodate other branches, I would be more than happy to edit and create other publications for branch specifics. But in doing this it needs to be accurate with that branch (you will research and send me pertinent documents to build on, I don't have the time to do the research myself). For example, we used actual AF Performance Reports to build our evaluation sheets. Promotion forms on the other hand were built on principle alone, but you will have to read on for that.

Anyways, I'd like to get started. We started first by examining our current situation. Once it was affirmed that we had nothing in place, we got to work from scratch. First we researched with our instructors as to the processes that the AF uses, then simplified by about a million. Next we got together the official documentation and then went to work on creating forms. As we created the forms we developed the system. This ensured that everything has a reason and nothing will go unused or ignored. Now I'd like to break down both the evaluation forms and the promotion forms. There are 5 forms in all and I've attached each one. With the information I provide here in conjunction with the provided forms we should be able to explain the entire system.

Evaluation Forms

There are three evaluation forms: A Cadet Enlisted Evaluation Form (c/AB thru c/TSgt), a Cadet Enlisted Evaluation Form (c/MSgt thru c/CMSgt), and a Cadet Officer Evaluation Form. The basic premise for all three was that there needed to be a short, simple, and uniform process. You will notice that all three share almost the exact same layout and include many of the same sections. Of course the two cadet enlisted evaluation forms look almost identical with only minor variation. The cadet officer evaluation form is slightly more varied than the other two. The basic to all of it was this: Cadet enlisted were to have performance sections with degrees of how they performed. This took the pass/fail situation away from it and gives it more of a system to really review cadets. Cadet officers were to have a single performance review stating whether or not they meet the standards of officership. If no, we broke it down further to target specific areas, but there are no degrees of variation. We want officership to be a make or break situation; you can't have officers who don't live up to the very best. Lets break down these forms now.

Cadet Enlisted Evaluations

The first two sections are the same. They are used to define who the cadet is in terms of name, year, rank, position, etc. The third section is where the variation exists. The c/AB thru c/TSgt version is based on the basics: duties, basic standards, fitness, requirements, and teamwork. The c/MSgt thru c/CMSgt version is based more on leadership aspects: duties, leadership standards, fitness, requirements, and team leadership. The final sections are the same for both. They are used to define the evaluators, overall performance, reviews, and acknowledgment. The reason why we have chosen this course is because it focuses the cadet in all areas of the day-to-day operations of a cadet enlisted. The information is not substantial or impartial, each cadet is subjected to the same review because it does not focus on 'superfluous' information that can simply be added in the comment sections ('superfluous' information refers to the non day-to-day requirements of a cadet, such as drill teams, color guards, community events, etc., unless they are required by said cadet).

Cadet Officer Evaluation

Cadet officers have a slightly varied format than the previous two forms. The first two sections are quintessentially the same, with the only variation being the amount of space available for duty descriptions. The major change comes in with the third thru sixth sections. These are used for the performance factors and a simple overall assessment of the cadet officer. We have include exactly what the AF includes in there assessments: job knowledge, leadership skills, professional qualities, organizational skills, judgment and decisions, communication skills, and physical fitness. This system allows a very simple yet effective view of a cadet officer, and whether or not his/her status as such should be maintained.

Read on to next post due to character constrictions.

[TruBlu]

Promotion Logs

I've already talked about promotion logs on the board here, but I want to have that same information here, so I've quoted myself below explaining them. What I want to also explain with this is that the evaluations forms are to be used in conjunction with the promotion logs. This is done through the cadet boards. At a cadet board, a panel will review the cadet using the very same form. Then they can determine whether or not the cadet deserves promotion. There have also been minor changes to the logs since last posted so recheck those in this thread.

Originally Posted by TruBlu

Cadet Enlisted Promotion Log

-Four parts to every rank, with the only exception being c/AB as that rank is issued upon entrance.

--From c/Amn thru c/SrA, there are two tests for each rank, plus a time in grade (TIG), and a time in service (TIS).
---The two tests are variations of a basic AFJROTC knowledge test and a basic drill test. Each rank will have successive tests getting harder and more depth in questioning as the cadet advances.
---The TIG is the amount of time the cadet has spent at their current rank. After that allotted time, the cadet is eligible in that section.
---The TIS is the amount of time the cadet has spent in their current AS year. After that allotted time, the cadet is eligible in that section.

--c/SSgt and c/TSgt, there is one test each, a cadet board review, a TIG, and a TIS.
---The tests will be variations of PT knowledge, but not necessarily performance. The idea is so that they are fully prepared to exercise, teach, and lead within their flight as Flight Sergeants. PT tests based on cadet performance can be discouraging, and in a unit as small as mine, that is a no go.
---The board will be a panel of three cadets: the Vice Commander, First Sergeant, and another officer (more than likely the Current Operations Officer or Color Guard Commander, a cadet with a good understanding of discipline and performance).
---TIG and TIS are both lengthened.

--c/MSgt and c/SMSgt, there is one test each, a cadet board review, a TIG, and a TIS.
---The tests will be variations of military knowledge. These are to develop a well rounded curriculum, not just AF and AFJROTC knowledge.
---The board, TIG, and TIS are the same.

--c/CMSgt has one test, a cadet board review, a TIG, and a TIS.
---The test will be the final military knowledge test.
---The board is the same, however TIG, and TIS are both lengthened.

Cadet Officer Promotion Log

-Two/Four parts to each rank.

--c/2d Lt has three tests and one prerequisite.
---The tests include a drill command test (so the cadet is prepared to command a flight in drill), a flight management test (so the cadet is prepared to run a flight efficiently), and a leadership situations test (so the cadet is prepared to handle situations that he/she will encounter).
---The prerequisite will be that they have graduated Cadet Officer Leadership School.
---There is not TIG or TIS because the cadet is advancing to a separate track of promotions.

--c/1st Lt has one test, a cadet board review, a TIG, and a TIS.
---The test will be a staff management test so the cadet is prepared to command and operate a staff.
---The board, TIG, and TIS will be the same as before.

--c/Capt has one test, a cadet board review, a TIG, and a TIS.
---The test will be a corps management test so the cadet is prepared to command and operate the entire corps.
---The board, TIG, and TIS will be the same as before.

--c/Maj thru c/Col, one test, and an instructor approval. This is because the field grade ranks are issued only by the SASI.
---The tests will be variations of military knowledge, the very same as the cadet SNCOs.

Calculating TIG and TIS
As mentioned before, there are block and there are "A-B" schedules, and then there is a mixture. Here's how we broke it down:

AS1: 180 days per, divided by 3 promotions per. This gives a promotion every 60 days. To allow time to wear the ranks, and to allow for more testing, we took one-third off of the time, giving every 40 days for promotion. For semester classes, they go on a fast track promotion system, so you divide the final by 2 to get every 20 days. Also, the days are school days only, not to include weekends or holidays.

AS2: 180 days per, divided by 2 promotions per. This gives a promotion every 90 days. Take one-third off again and you get every 60 days. Divide it by 2 for semester classes to get every 30 days.

AS3 Enlisted: Same as AS2.

AS3 Officer: 180 days per, divided by 3 promotions per. This gives a promotion every 60 days. Take one-third off and you get every 40 days. Divide it by 2 for semester classes to get every 20 days.

AS4 Enlisted: 180 days per, divided by 1 promotion per. This gives a promotion on the 180th day. Take one-third off and you get it on the 120th. Divide it by 2 for semester classes to get 60 days.

AS4 Officer: No time restraints.

Time before retaking tests has yet to be discussed, but it will probably be a short period, 20 days max for standard classes (actually a month), 10 days for semester classes (actually 2 weeks).

Overall and Attachments

I think that these 5 forms are decent to say the least, and the if the system is followed it could prove a very effective one indeed. I probably skipped a few things in there, but I'm open to as many questions as there are out there. Attachments are below.

[TruBlu]

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

That is an extremely long and difficult and maybe even odd promotion system. It's too long and drawn-out.

Actually, it's quite the contrary my friend. Our promotion system is based on the cadet's initiative. Cadets who strive for promotions will find this system to be tough in terms of testing, but overall simplistic and strait forward, giving them exact criteria that they must meet. The system works as fast as a cadet does, or as slow. The TIG and TIS factors are there so cadets do not advance too quickly, and if you look at the amount of time between those, there is ample time for tests and improvement. You must keep in mind that rank in the military is not solely based on placement, but also on goals that they must meet to gain pay grades. This system is built around that idea to make it more military oriented, as opposed to, "Good job here's another stripe."

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

All temporary rank is based on INSTRUCTOR DECISION ONLY. There are three instructors. Approval of two are required for promotion.

Most units do not operate in this fashion. With AFJROTC being a cadet run program, the cadets manage the unit with instructor oversight. That is not to say that instructors shouldn't have a say in things, it's just that they shouldn't have to have a say in things. Also, cadets act differently around instructors than they do with fellow cadets. Cadets see the true side of other cadets, not instructors in most cases. It is to my belief that instructors should also not rate a cadet's performance and be the sole factor. I believe that the cadet commanders have say, and cadet boards are the best way to examine a cadet. This is because the cadets are interacting with other cadets constantly on their day to day duties. Every cadet is a subordinate in some way, the corps commander is the subordinate of the SASI and ASI(s), the staff and subsequent commanders are the subordinates of the the corps commander, and so on.

Instructors appoint cadets into positions to run the corps. Now I ask, how are cadets able to run the corps if they do not have sufficient control over the aspects of the corps, including the all important rank factor?

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

It basically is based on the "whole person" principle. If you are not well-rounded, you are not promoted.

That is the purpose of the testing and cadet boards. Early testing builds the fundamentals of AFJROTC while taking out a personal factor. When advancing into the cadet NCO ranks and cadet officer ranks, it becomes more personal with emphasis placed less on testing, and more on performance within the corps' operations.

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

I would also recommend having limitations on SNCO and Field Grade Officer numbers...people get power-hungry. For example, at SHS, we only have ONE C/Colonel, and FOUR C/Lt. Colonels, and like two C/CMSgts.

The is not the task of an evaluation and promotion system. This task is left to organizational structure and a unit manning document (UMD). Corps structures alter between every unit, and within units they can alter between years. Organizational structures should not be definite. Therefore the amount of particular cadet ranks vary. In example:

'Unit A' has a cadet wing organized into two groups, one being an operational group and the other a support group. Within the operational group there are two operational squadrons with two operational flights in each. Within the support group there is a mission support squadron with various staff flights and a logistics squadron with various logistics related flights. 'Unit A' could have a c/Col at the wing level, two c/Lt Col's at the group level, four c/Maj's at the squadron level, and many more c/Capt's at the flight level. Not to mention the different cadet NCO positions and numerous other positions I did not fill in, I'm simply going for basics.

'Unit B' has a cadet squadron organized into two flights and a staff component. At the squadron level there is a c/Col, at the staff level there are c/Lt Col's (as many as there are staff positions), and at the flight level there are c/Maj's. Now keep in mind it's basic and these are both examples of could be organizational structures with could be maximum grade authorizations.

Do you see where I am going with this? There is not set amount of c/Col's or c/Lt Col's or c/CMSgt's or anything for that matter when dealing with evaluation and promotion systems. If you want to talk about maximum grade authorizations and organizational structures, we have an entire thread dedicated to that (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/...read.php?t=223), and numerous other threads with that discussion mentioned.

What I am trying to get through here is that organizational structure is flexible and should have the ability to change, while an evaluation and promotion system should have the ability to stay uniform and not place limitations on the corps.

[cnealsc-011]

Originally Posted by TruBlu

Actually, it's quite the contrary my friend. Our promotion system is based on the cadet's initiative. Cadets who strive for promotions will find this system to be tough in terms of testing, but overall simplistic and strait forward, giving them exact criteria that they must meet. The system works as fast as a cadet does, or as slow. The TIG and TIS factors are there so cadets do not advance too quickly, and if you look at the amount of time between those, there is ample time for tests and improvement. You must keep in mind that rank in the military is not solely based on placement, but also on goals that they must meet to gain pay grades. This system is built around that idea to make it more military oriented, as opposed to, "Good job here's another stripe."



Most units do not operate in this fashion. With AFJROTC being a cadet run program, the cadets manage the unit with instructor oversight. That is not to say that instructors shouldn't have a say in things, it's just that they shouldn't have to have a say in things. Also, cadets act differently around instructors than they do with fellow cadets. Cadets see the true side of other cadets, not instructors in most cases. It is to my belief that instructors should also not rate a cadet's performance and be the sole factor. I believe that the cadet commanders have say, and cadet boards are the best way to examine a cadet. This is because the cadets are interacting with other cadets constantly on their day to day duties. Every cadet is a subordinate in some way, the corps commander is the subordinate of the SASI and ASI(s), the staff and subsequent commanders are the subordinates of the the corps commander, and so on.

Instructors appoint cadets into positions to run the corps. Now I ask, how are cadets able to run the corps if they do not have sufficient control over the aspects of the corps, including the all important rank factor?


That is the purpose of the testing and cadet boards. Early testing builds the fundamentals of AFJROTC while taking out a personal factor. When advancing into the cadet NCO ranks and cadet officer ranks, it becomes more personal with emphasis placed less on testing, and more on performance within the corps' operations.



The is not the task of an evaluation and promotion system. This task is left to organizational structure and a unit manning document (UMD). Corps structures alter between every unit, and within units they can alter between years. Organizational structures should not be definite. Therefore the amount of particular cadet ranks vary. In example:

'Unit A' has a cadet wing organized into two groups, one being an operational group and the other a support group. Within the operational group there are two operational squadrons with two operational flights in each. Within the support group there is a mission support squadron with various staff flights and a logistics squadron with various logistics related flights. 'Unit A' could have a c/Col at the wing level, two c/Lt Col's at the group level, four c/Maj's at the squadron level, and many more c/Capt's at the flight level. Not to mention the different cadet NCO positions and numerous other positions I did not fill in, I'm simply going for basics.

'Unit B' has a cadet squadron organized into two flights and a staff component. At the squadron level there is a c/Col, at the staff level there are c/Lt Col's (as many as there are staff positions), and at the flight level there are c/Maj's. Now keep in mind it's basic and these are both examples of could be organizational structures with could be maximum grade authorizations.

Do you see where I am going with this? There is not set amount of c/Col's or c/Lt Col's or c/CMSgt's or anything for that matter when dealing with evaluation and promotion systems. If you want to talk about maximum grade authorizations and organizational structures, we have an entire thread dedicated to that (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/...read.php?t=223), and numerous other threads with that discussion mentioned.

What I am trying to get through here is that organizational structure is flexible and should have the ability to change, while an evaluation and promotion system should have the ability to stay uniform and not place limitations on the corps.

But are cadets mature enough to make an impact that big on someone in such a crucial four years of their life? In my opinion, no they are not. Even the corps' commander, as high and mighty and good in character and actions as he or she may be, still, imo, is not mature enough to decide on things like that. People have biases, no matter who they are...it just so happens that instructors don't "care" as much about what a cadet is when it comes to social life, popularity, etc., as cadets do. Cadets are your peers, thus they may (and often do) have an extremely clouded and biased opinion of you. If you are well-liked, you may get away with things that less well-liked people do. Just because everyone likes you does not mean you are a great leader. A leader is someone who doesn't care who likes them, but still makes everyone do what needs to be done.
You may argue to me: "Well, people elect their class officers and president."
To me, this is completely different. People are affected by these people so little that they often se minor changes, if at all any, come from these people. But, someone like an AFJROTC corps' commander, and an evaluation board, and cadet commanders and officers, are just that, cadets. They are immature teenagers with incorrect views on things. If Person A really doesn't like Person B, but Person B is extremely qualified, but Person A decides he won't promote him because he has a slanted view/and or personal bias for whatever reason against Person B, then that is not right. I have seen this before, many times.

As far as rank limitations goes, I was making suggestions.
Limits on Field Grade Officers and SNCO's are a great idea because the unit functions so much more smoothly that way. There is much less conflict of power.

[Lkg]

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

But are cadets mature enough to make an impact that big on someone in such a crucial four years of their life?

I believe cadets are. JROTC is about building leadership and character in high school students. Part of being a leader is setting aside your personal opinions and getting the job done. Cadets should learn to be objective and when they step into JROTC it's business. As a cadet progresses through the program they should grow as a leader and have the ability to be objective. I would expect that through four years of JROTC a cadet would gain the maturity to make objective decisions.

To put a cadet in a position of leadership requires faith in the cadet to execute all the duties of the position to the best of their abilities. A cadet group commander must be able to trust their subordinate cadet commander's opinion to be objective and in the unit's best interest. Just as the instructors seek the cadet group commander's opinion on matters that affect the cadet group.

I think the one problem with most JROTC cadets is they have built their goals around gaining cadet rank. Cadets are more concerned with their cadet ranks instead of doing their jobs.

[TruBlu]

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

But are cadets mature enough to make an impact that big on someone in such a crucial four years of their life? In my opinion, no they are not.

The term 'cadets,' in general does not deserve the branding of mature or immature. With this statement you are referring to the cadet boards correct? If so, your case is weak. A board takes away most cases of partial thinking because it involves multiple evaluators. Also, evaluators would not be just any cadet. Cadets who would be evaluating other cadets would be ones placed in positions of responsibility, who would be trained in the ways of impartial judgment. If they were not so trained they would not be on the board.

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

Even the corps' commander, as high and mighty and good in character and actions as he or she may be, still, imo, is not mature enough to decide on things like that.

Corps commander? Where did I mention a singular position having control over a particular situation?

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

People have biases, no matter who they are...it just so happens that instructors don't "care" as much about what a cadet is when it comes to social life, popularity, etc., as cadets do.

Yeah? Hm, I didn't know that instructors thought that way, I always thought that they took in all factors of cadets when choosing their leadership and those responsible for important tasks.

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

You may argue to me: "Well, people elect their class officers and president."

I may not. The two are completely different situations. AFJROTC is not a popularity contest. Voting is non-existent within a cadet corps in regards to cadet positions.

Originally Posted by cnealsc-011

They are immature teenagers with incorrect views on things.

Only immature teenagers would make such a blanket statement such as this.

[usmckeith]

I think that is an EXCELLENT promotion system. I don't see why you guys are griping. Jealousy?

Anyways, my instructors have looked over those PDFs and he wants to implement them ASAP (aka next year).

We need whatever we can get to keep our program alive. We currently have a total of 41 cadets this year (we lost our PE credit), so as the top choice for group commander next year it falls upon me to keep the unit up and running and getting recruiting going. And to make matters worse our CMSgt instructor says he's retiring next year if it doesn't go well.

[skf_atc]

This is what it was like in my unit. Basically if you weren't a dirt bag and could pass 1 test per year, you were promoted. I didn't go to SLS but I still came out as a C/LTC. I started AS 1 year as a C/A1C which was the equivalent to my NSCC rate. For about 2 years whenever I was promoted in the NSCC, my ASIs promoted me in AFJROTC. Junior year I was a C/CPT because my flight commander was fired and I had experience leading people.

Those documents you submitted I think are a good idea. Best of luck to you on it.