Download Free The New Enlisted Evaluation System Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The New Enlisted Evaluation System and write the review.

"In 2015, the Air Force unveiled a new Enlisted Evaluation System (EES) and related changes to the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) due to consistent complaints of a “broken system”. The new EES seems thoroughly researched with a solid foundation in the Weighted Airman Promotion System, but even as it is being implemented the Air Force is finding issues that require adjustments. Air Force leadership has admitted the new system is not perfect; thus, this research examines the EES concepts and procedures using the problem/solution framework with a view on long-term effects to find potential problems. EES history, Sister-service promotion systems and an explanation of the new EES are used to support the conclusion that these changes are effective in addressing the Airmen complaints, although may cause other problems. Recommendations are derived from historical examples, Sister-service procedures, and gaps in direction that could potentially allow the system to create inequities or a perception of subjectivity"--Abstract.
This publication, Air Force Instruction AFI 36-2406 Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems June 2019, implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-24, Military Evaluations. It provides guidance and procedures for implementing Air Force (AF) Evaluation Systems policy for the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). It describes how to prepare, submit, and manage Air Force Forms (AF Forms) prescribed by this Air Force Instruction (AFI). Waivers to this instruction are authorized and shall be processed IAW AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management. This publication applies to all major commands (MAJCOM), field operating agencies (FOA), direct reporting units (DRU), and other Air Force activities, as well as Regular Air Force, Air National Guard (ANG), Active Guard/Reserve (AGR), and Air Force Reserve (AFR) activities, officers, and enlisted. While the philosophy and intent of the OES/EES pertain to the ANG and AFR, modifications are necessary. This instruction also provides procedures governing evaluation of brigadier and major generals.
The U.S. Coast Guard has revamped its Enlisted Performance Evaluation System on 1 July 1983. The new system was developed by a five member project team which analyzed in detail the problems and shortcomings of the previous system, and re-defined needs and uses of the new system. The prime consideration in designing the new system was to better identify performance levels and provide feedback of strengths and weaknesses to the evaluee. As a result the system did not provide adequate differentiation between members of the same pay grades. Junior and senior enlisted members were evaluated on the same form at the same time. The system did not provide the evaluee with information on what his or her strengths/weaknesses were. Proficiency, Leadership, and Conduct were broadly defined, and all the evaluee was privy to was the 'final' three marks, with some understanding that these marks would refer to terms such as 'Outstanding, Excellent, or Average.' The Mark assigned in each category was an 'average' of the items that made up that category. Therefore, the system did not provide any meaningful feedback on job performance, only final marks.
Because test scores that are part of its enlisted promotion system are not standardized, the U.S. Air Force effectively emphasizes longevity and test-taking ability differently across and within specialties, and this emphasis varies randomly over time. The random aspects of the promotion reward system mean that the Air Force cannot be sure that it is selecting individuals with the highest potential to fill positions of increased grade and responsibility. Furthermore, not standardizing scores means that some specialties randomly produce higher percentages of senior non-commissioned officers. The authors discuss a range of outcomes that the Air Force could achieve by adopting various standardization strategies. They propose a modification that would not change the policy of equal selection opportunity but would affect selection outcomes within specialties. They recommend that the Air Force implement a standardization strategy that will produce predictable outcomes that are consistent with its personnel priorities and policies.