Officials announce EPR criteria, policy

  • Published
  • By Master Sgt. Mitchell L. Gettle
  • Air Force Print News
The Air Force has released a policy to clarify senior rater endorsement and stratification procedures for enlisted performance reports. 

While many supervisors and senior NCOs looked to completion of the Senior NCO Academy and a Community College of the Air Force degree as criteria for consideration of a senior rater endorsement for promotion to the ranks of senior and chief master sergeant, no official policy existed. 

The new policy clarifies and standardizes criteria for endorsement and stratification statements. 

"Senior raters must have completed the Senior NCO Academy either by correspondence or in-residence, and have a CCAF degree for endorsement eligibility," said Tech. Sgt. Jamey Kennedy, 325th Mission Support Squadron NCO in charge of evaluations and decorations. 

The policy notes that meeting these requirements is not a guarantee for senior rater endorsement. 

"Individuals must still meet the same criteria outlined in the Air Force Instruction on senior rater qualifications," said Sergeant Kennedy. "In addition, it's now official policy that they also complete Senior NCO Academy and their CCAF degree." 

The implementation dates will be for the calendar year 2007 chief master sergeant and calendar year 2008 senior master sergeant promotion cycles. This transition time provides senior NCOs the opportunity to complete the requirements, said Chief Master Sgt. Trenda Voegtle, chief of enlisted evaluations and promotions policy. 

The CCAF degree is an occupational education degree. Specific programs are designed to provide students with the necessary backgrounds to perform as competent supervisors in their field. 

"This policy re-emphasizes the importance of deliberate and timely (professional military education) and CCAF completion for our enlisted force, formally instills the developmental expectation, and ensures a consistent policy for senior rater endorsement eligibility across the Air Force," said Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force Rodney J. McKinley. 

Stratification statements on EPRs will also change. Statements will only be allowed on EPR's of those master sergeant and senior master sergeants who are time-in-grade promotion eligible for senior rater endorsement. Stratification statements on all other EPRs, to include chief master sergeant reports, is prohibited. Instead of stratification statement use on chief master sergeant EPRs, evaluators will focus comments on future job recommendations. 

"As a result of the perception that stratification is required for promotion, raters have started using multiple, uncontrolled stratification schemes that only add to the confusion promotion board members feel when trying to identify the right people for promotion," said Lt. Gen. Roger A. Brady, deputy chief of staff for manpower and personnel. 

"To ensure stratification statements remain a valuable tool, we must ensure they are limited and used in the proper context," said General Brady, who personally discussed the issue with major command vice commanders and command chief master sergeants. 

If a stratification statement is used, it will be defined in quantitative terms, such as "No. 1 of 178 master sergeants in the wing." Statements based on percentage or "best in career field" are no longer allowed. 

"Stratification, if used properly, must rank the individual among their peers in their flight, not a general group or at the wing level," said Sergeant Kennedy. The rankings must be specific - they have to mean something to the review board, he said. 

This policy also states that evaluators will stratify master sergeants and senior master sergeants separately and should only consider the number assigned within their rating scope. 

This policy will be included in the revision to Air Force Instruction 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. 

The evaluations and decorations flight here emphasizes the importance of thoroughly reviewing all EPRs before they are submitted. 

"Common mistakes on EPRs are incorrectly stating the rater or ratee's duty title, the feedback date is not within the permitted time frame, and having discrepancies in the 'concur, non-concur' section," said Sergeant Kennedy. 

"It's the rater and senior rater's responsibility to ensure EPR forms are correctly filled out and that the new stratification changes are adhered to," said Sergeant Kennedy.