Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

I read both “Get fit (they’re not kidding)” [Aug. 13] and “Your new review” [July 23], about our fitness scores being included in our enlisted and officer performance report documentation. First, let me say I agree that fitness should be a part of our promotion system. However, I believe Air Force officials have overlooked a problem: They are comparing apples with oranges.

If it is going to be a matter of whether I am promoted, the raters should consider the fact that our tests are not the same. I was retrained from a 2A571 (135R crew chief) to a 2T171 (vehicle operator) because of a flight line knee injury. For that reason, I must now do the ergonometric test. In my ergo test, they are calculating how my heart responds to different workloads, but if I could still run, my test would just be a matter of me running a certain distance in a certain amount of time.

Before they compare our fitness test scores, they should take into consideration the variables — either compare heart rates or give me a distance and a time to ride the bike. That would make it a more accurate promotion comparison.

Tech. Sgt. Laurie L. Hope

Kadena Air Base, Japan

I just reviewed the information on the revised OPR and wanted to provide some feedback from the field.

For the most part, I think the new form is a major improvement over the old one. I especially like the shorter fields for duty description, rater and additional rater sections. I also like the idea of not having to take up space spelling out acronyms on the front page.

The addition of physical fitness information on the form is also a step in the right direction, but it stopped well short of where we should be and probably well short of what former Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper had in mind when he started this initiative. The Marines have it right — they have their fitness scores on their evaluation. It’s important enough to them to include it. By excluding the scores and even the category, it’s another slap in the face for those who go above and beyond. It provides no motivation except maybe to those on the borderline, many of whom don’t care anyway.

It’s also another missed opportunity to include a concrete measure of performance versus subjective criteria. The Air Force rating/promotion system is already 90 percent subjective. Why not include something that is concrete, such as fitness scores, degree completion, degree type, grade-point average and other scores? Publishing personal performance measures can be an outstanding motivator to do more than just the minimum. Why does the Air Force continue to promote mediocrity? How many times have we all heard fellow officers brag about “not breaking the seals” on their professional military education books, or say, “The only exercises I’m doing are 12-ounce curls”?

It’s frustrating for those who do go above and beyond to be continually lumped into broad categories with those who just do the minimum. Maybe it’s time to change our core value from “excellence in all we do” to “good enough for government work” to fall more in line with how we rate ourselves.

Maj. Lonnie P. Hammack

Honolulu

We’re seeing our gyms full and rush hours on our running tracks as we embrace the not-so-new fitness standards. Breaking out fitness on the performance reports cements our commitment to fitness, and we’ve almost got it right. We’ve removed the ambiguity and created what should be a black-and-white representation of an airman’s fitness.

The problem is that unless an airman’s enlisted performance report closes out within 43 days of his failure on the test, he gets an automatic second chance to have his EPR reflect a pass. Surprisingly, for an airman who fails to meet standards close to the closeout of his EPR, a commander has the option of extending the closeout 59 days to allow the airman to pass his fitness test. This allows for perceived favoritism or inequities in commanders’ policies to influence careers differently.

Unlike with the ergonometric test, every airman can measure his ability to pass his fitness test and has no excuse for failing it, especially given that we are several years into this thing. The appraisal of an airman’s fitness should be an extension of our appraisal of the rest of his performance. Fitness tests should come within 30 days of the closeout of the EPR with no option to extend the closeout to provide an opportunity to pass. To do otherwise may give an airman false hope or dilute his accountability for passing it the first time.

Senior Master Sgt. Gregory L. Stone

Patrick Air Force Base, Fla.

I’m looking at an Air Force performance report written about me at Itazuke Air Base, Japan, on Dec. 29, 1961. I was just a “two-striper,” but this form seemed like it told the whole story. It was a double-sided, one-page form. The front side was filled out using blocks for ID data, duties, performance qualities, noncommissioned officer qualities, and how the airman used resources and accepted responsibility. The back had blocks for an overall evaluation comparing the airman with others of the same grade and specialty, a large space for the comments of the reporting official, and promotion recommendation blocks. There was also space for a review by the endorsing official and his concurrence or not, comments, the endorser’s signature, and blocks for the commander to recommend — or not — a Good Conduct Medal, along with his signature. Who else would really know if you deserved to receive the GCM? They’re automatic now, aren’t they?

At the bottom of the block the reporting official used to make his comments on the airman was a typed-in comment: “I have discussed with and shown to (your name) the contents of this report.” Boy, even I could understand what was going on, and I was just an E-3.

Sounded like a pretty good system of writing a report on a person and then discussing with that person the reasons for the writings and ratings. The report could be discussed with your reporting official prior to it going forward (it had to be discussed or your initials would not appear on the form). These forms were around for a while and served their purpose until somebody decided we needed a change. How many changes with the performance report system have we gone though since then? This is progress?

Chief Master Sgt. Bill Peterson (ret.)

Milligan, Fla.

The EPR/OPR changes are a step in the right direction; however, changing the fact that “airmen will now be rated on how well they do their jobs, not if they should be promoted” will not change a thing with fluff EPR ratings. The problem lies in the promotion system and supervisor accountability and integrity. As long as the “five” EPR awards you 135 points for promotion testing, supervisors will write the package so their troop can get the most points. This mentality will not change. One of the first things I was told when I was stationed at Osan Air Base, South Korea, was, “Everyone is a five unless you write them paperwork.” Why would a commander write someone paperwork for just coming to work and getting their job done? Based on the old and current EPR system, that’s a three.

I think the board should focus more on the main issue, fluff ratings, than renaming a portion of the EPR to make it sound as if it really has been overhauled. I suggest EPRs should be taken out of the promotion points system until there is a true fix. You have people who are truly threes making rank off of a five EPR. And I’ll admit it, I’ve been given fives my whole career, though the majority of the time I deserved threes and fours. I did my job, sometimes I did a little more, but that’s it.

Staff Sgt. Ronald W. McElliott Jr.

Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

Raptors in Alaska

It’s an exciting time at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, as we welcome the newest, most revolutionary, most talked about air dominance fighter in the history of aviation. The F-22 Raptor will soon be commonplace in the skies above Alaska, protecting America and the Pacific theater. With its arrival, our Air Force is more capable than ever of fighting and winning our nation’s battles.

We remember the words of one of our most visionary forefathers, Billy Mitchell, who said, “I believe that, in the future, whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. ... I think it is the most important strategic place in the world.” These words couldn’t be more appropriate in a summer that has seen the arrival of the F-22 as well as the C-17 Globemaster.

History has taught us that we cannot successfully fight tomorrow’s wars by training to fight today’s enemy. The global war on terrorism has challenged our Air Force in combat with an enemy that uses crude tactics and primitive technology. Who would have guessed 20 years ago we’d have airmen riding horses into battle in the 21st century? But that’s exactly what we did in the opening days of the conflict in Afghanistan.

It’s important to note that as the fight with our current enemy grabs all the headlines, the nature of warfare is constantly evolving on several fronts. We cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that we may be called upon to battle an enemy whose technology and skills more closely mirror our own, and we may have to counter both types of threats simultaneously. When that time comes, your Air Force doesn’t want a fair fight; we want overwhelming air dominance that makes the fight patently unfair — to the other guy. The F-22 is designed for just that — total air dominance for decades to come.

The Raptor is proving its mettle right now at five bases across the country. Last year it flew 97 percent of scheduled sorties during Exercise Northern Edge 2006. This year during its debut in Red Flag, the Raptor scored 100 percent direct hits with its air-to-ground weapons.

Airmen in Alaska have received the most advanced air dominance fighter in existence to enable them to meet their commitment to our nation.

We stand ready, on a new frontier, providing America’s top cover.

Lt. Gen. Douglas Fraser

Commander, Alaskan Command,

Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Command Region,

11th Air Force and Joint Task Force-Alaska

Col. Thomas Tinsley

Commander, 3rd Wing

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska