Officers' Annual Confidential Reports

Fireflair wrote:Over the years I was in the US Navy I wrote any number of evals and reviews. One of the first things I learned, to my vast disappointment, was that you would not be allowed to be honest. Very few sailors who ever served under me were bad. Some were misguided, young, inexperienced or occasionally foolish. But not usually bad.

I did have a few, and one of them was when I first began writing evals for junior enlisted sailors. This was the sort of person we couldn't trust to scrape paint. He'd do a half-arsed job of it, wander off or wouldn't listen. We'd tried every method of discipline that we had but still couldn't get him to perform.

His eval reflected that, garnering him a 2.0 in most areas. (On a 5.0 scale) I didn't quite blast him, but I stated that he wasn't trustworthy, was borderline incompetent and should be considered for removal from service. My wording was a bit less blunt than that, but it was sent back several times. I had to sit down with the XO for a discussion about how evals should be written. Overall, it opened my eyes to the reality of paperwork in the Navy.

It's a sad truth that today's military, the Navy at least, is far more interested in paperwork than in getting real work done. All too often this sends good people out of the Navy and keeps bad ones because reviews are not accurate. They're coached in 'acceptable' language.

Bill Woods wrote:

Rincewind wrote: I also came across a story where the Imperial Japanese were a dominant space power in the Solar System. After one particularly embarrassing incident the Prime Minister was talking to his senior naval officer whilst the officer in question was wondering whether the Prime Minister was going to resign. Then the Prime Minister said that he was probably going to have to resign... & that he intended recommending his senior naval officer to his successor in 'the most glowing possible terms.' He then put the phone down & the naval officer muttered, 'Well, you needn't be so nasty about it.' Does anybody remember the story?

The Rosinante trilogy, by Alexis A Gilliland. But he wasn't being ambiguous, he was being bitingly sarcastic.

Don't have it handy, but before that there's the bit where the admiral's aide warns that the situation is about to go public, with newspaper headlines like "The UFOS is Coming!"
The admiral says that reporters are stupid -- they'll probably write "The UFOS are coming".
"Very funny -- but only in English! I'm sure the prime minister will appreciate your wit."

pnakasone wrote:

Fireflair wrote:Over the years I was in the US Navy I wrote any number of evals and reviews. One of the first things I learned, to my vast disappointment, was that you would not be allowed to be honest. Very few sailors who ever served under me were bad. Some were misguided, young, inexperienced or occasionally foolish. But not usually bad.

I did have a few, and one of them was when I first began writing evals for junior enlisted sailors. This was the sort of person we couldn't trust to scrape paint. He'd do a half-arsed job of it, wander off or wouldn't listen. We'd tried every method of discipline that we had but still couldn't get him to perform.

His eval reflected that, garnering him a 2.0 in most areas. (On a 5.0 scale) I didn't quite blast him, but I stated that he wasn't trustworthy, was borderline incompetent and should be considered for removal from service. My wording was a bit less blunt than that, but it was sent back several times. I had to sit down with the XO for a discussion about how evals should be written. Overall, it opened my eyes to the reality of paperwork in the Navy.

It's a sad truth that today's military, the Navy at least, is far more interested in paperwork than in getting real work done. All too often this sends good people out of the Navy and keeps bad ones because reviews are not accurate. They're coached in 'acceptable' language.

You will always get this kind of problem in peace time military. It has been often said that the best fighting officers are least able to deal politics of a peace time military. The reverse is often true as well.