Anyone who has dealt with the Air Force and its enlisted rating system would be hard-pressed to say it is equitable and accurate. It has been in place since the early 1990s and replaced an older system, the Airmen Performance Report (APR). Under the older system an individual was rated on a scale from 1-10. The new system, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), took what is in my opinion a step backward by changing to a 1-5 scale. The difference between a four and a five on an EPR is drastic and has a big impact on an individual's promotability; double the impact of the difference between a 9 and 10 on an APR. Many leaders (myself included) do not want to make such a negative impact on an overall good individual and therefore constantly give him/her the benefit of the doubt and award a five instead of a four. Because of this, ratings individuals receive under the current EPR system are consistently inflated. Additionally, it would be unfair for a leader to also mark his/her subordinate down knowing that so many other people out there are giving the benefit of the doubt and awarding a five instead of a four (or a four instead of a three, etc). All in all the current system isn't working as it should because outstanding individuals are being grouped together and rated the same as excellent, good, and even average performers. Thus, this system is giving promotions to average performers as much as it is giving promotions to outstanding ones. That is certainly unfair and, even worse, is putting average people in positions of authority over more deserving high performers. Therefore, I developed a new system.

First, I changed the scale to valuations that run from 0 to 100 instead of 1 to 5. My logic in this decision is that most people won't mind awarding or receiving a 96 or a 92 instead of a 100. Sure, the 100 is better, but a 96 or 92 is still great. I would be more comfortable awarding a good performer an 86, for example, instead of taking away those 6 points by giving him/her the closest EPR equivalent of 4 (EPR 1 would be 20, 2 would be 40, 3 would be 60, 4 would be 80, and 5 would be 100 under my system). To sum this move up, I believe having more options for assigning a number to an individual's performance will produce more accurate ratings. Also, the difference between ratings on a larger scale has less of an impact on promotions. (On the first EPR a person receives the difference between a 4 and a 5 is 27 promotion points! Certainly we need a larger scale that lessens that gap and accounts for personnel that fall somewhere in the middle of it.)

Even with this change I felt more could be improved. So I incorporated the ratings on the front into the final score of the EPR. Currently, it would be possible to award someone the highest rating (5) and award low marks on all the criteria upon which he/she is being evaluated (although I haven't seen this happen). One can also be marked down in some areas yet still get the same promotion points as someone with no mark downs; again promoting average or good people as if they were the same as the outstanding ones. My system breaks down the points evenly into each one of those seven criteria and then computes the final score based upon markings for those criteria. So, an individual's score is directly based upon how he/she is rated on the criteria. I allocated 80% of the total score to the criteria thinking that would make 80% of the report mostly objective.

Pursuing this train of thought, I left 20% of the score for the rater/supervisor, and his/her rater/supervisor. That allows for 20% of the score to be subjective based upon those individuals' opinions of the person being rated. I feel both objectivity and subjectivity are valid on a report because how one performs (objective) and how one performs with others (subjective) are both important aspects of the overall person and his/her value to an organization. Still, with 80% of the score being directly based upon how the individual fits into the desired criteria the majority of the score is objective.

Really intrigued and wondering how this works? Well, just click the boxes in section III and section IV and see how they impact upon the score. I tried to exactly reproduce the look of the current EPR form but had to add a small block for the score. I did this at the bottom right next to the commander's signature block. That is where you will see the score produced based upon your selections. (No; you can't fill in all the fields. I made this only to show how the ratings portion would work.)

I would prefer this over the current EPR system. What do you think? Would this be better? If you think so, share this page with your friends and co-workers. Perhaps if either enough or the right people see this and like it then we'll all be seeing it as the replacement for the current system. If you don't like it because you think of something that could be further improved, send me an e-mail and let me know! I want a better system and am perfectly willing to develop it if top leadership would be willing to implement it.

ENLISTED PERFORMANCE REPORT (AB thru TSGT)

I. RATEE IDENTIFICATION DATA (Read AFI 36-2406 carefully before completing any item.)
1. NAME (Last First, Middle Initial)		2. SSN		3. GRADE		4. DAFSC
5. ORGANIZATION, COMMAND, AND LOCATION					6a. PAS CODE		6b. SRID
7. PERIOD OF REPORT From:	Thru:		8. NO. DAYS SUPERVISION		9. REASON FOR REPORT

II. JOB DESCRIPTION

1. DUTY TITLE

2. KEY DUTIES, TASKS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE (Each item: 11.43% / Section: 80%)
1. HOW WELL DOES RATEE PERFORM ASSIGNED DUTIES? (Consider quality, quantity, and timeliness of duties performed)
	Inefficient. An unprofessional performer.		Good performer. Performs routine duties satisfactorily.		Excellent performer. Consistently produces high quality work.		The exception. Absolutely superior in all areas.
2. HOW MUCH DOES RATEE KNOW ABOUT PRIMARY DUTIES? (Consider whether ratee has technical expertise and is able to apply the knowledge)
	Does not have the basic knowledge necessary to perform duties.		Has adequate technical knowledge to satisfactorily perform duties.		Extensive knowledge of all primary duties and related positions.		Excels in knowledge of all related positions. Masters all duties.
3. HOW WELL DOES RATEE COMPLY WITH STANDARDS? (Consider dress and apearance, weight and fitness, customs, and courtesies)
	Fails to meet minimum standards.		Meets Air Force standards.		Sets the example for others to follow.		Exemplifies top military standards.
4. HOW IS RATEE'S CONDUCT ON/OFF DUTY? (Consider financial responsibility, respect for authority, support for organizational activities, and maintenance of government facilities)
	Unacceptable.		Acceptable.		Sets the example for others.		Exemplifies the standard of conduct.
5. HOW WELL DOES RATEE SUPERVISE/LEAD? (Consider how well member sets and enforces standards, displays initiative and self-confidence, provides guidance and feedback, and fosters teamwork)
	Ineffective.		Effective. Obtains satisfactory results.		Highly effective.		Exceptionally effective leader.
6. HOW WELL DOES RATEE COMPLY WITH INDIVIDUAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS? (Consider upgrade training, profesional military education, proficiency/qualification, and contingency)
	Does not comply with minimum training requirements.		Complies with most training requirements.		Complies with all training requirements.		Consistently exceeds all training requirements.
7. HOW WELL DOES RATEE COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS? (Consider ratee's verbal and written skills)
	Unable to express thoughts clearly.		Organizes and expresses thoughts satisfactorily.		Consistently able to organize and express ideas clearly and concisely.		Highly skilled writer and communicator.

IV. PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION (Each item: 10% / Section: 20%) (Compare this ratee with others of the same grade and AFS)			RATEE NAME:
RECOMMENDATION	NOT RECOMMEND	NOT RECOMMENDED THIS TIME	CONSIDER	READY	IMMEDIATE PROMOTION
RATER'S RECOMMENDATION	1	2	3	4	5
ADDITIONAL RATER'S RECOMMENDATION	1	2	3	4	5

V. RATER'S COMMENTS
Last performance feedback was accomplished on: _________________ (Consistent with the direction in AFI 36-2406. If not accomplished, state the reason.)
NAME, GRADE, BR OF SVC, ORGN, COMD & LOCATION	DUTY TITLE		DATE
	SSN	SIGNATURE

VI. ADDITIONAL RATER'S COMMENTS		CONCUR		NONCONCUR
NAME, GRADE, BR oF SVC, ORGN, COMD & LOCATION	DUTY TITLE				DATE
	SSN		SIGNATURE
INSTRUCTIONS Reports written by a senior rater or the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force (CMSAF) will not be endorsed. Reports written by colonels or civilians (GS-15 or higher) do not require an additional rater; however, endorsement is permitted unless prohibited by the instruction above. When the rater's rater is not at least a MSgt or civilian (GS-07 or higher), the additional rater is the next official in the rating chain serving in the grade of MSgt or higher, or a civilian in the grade of GS-07 or higher. When the final evaluator (rater or additional rater) is not an Air Force officer, enlisted, or DAF civilian, an Air Force advisor review is required. All evaluators enter only last four numbers of SSN.

VII. COMMANDER'S REVIEW
CONCUR	NONCONCUR (Attach AF Form 77)	SIGNATURE	SCORE