This one came over the transom a little while ago- From the mil-email set…
Many years ago as a flight commander in an USAF F-4 squadron, I was required to write an OER (Officer Effectiveness Report) on each of the pilots and WSOs (weapon systems officers) in my charge. This onerous task was flawed from the outset since it was assumed that the rater would render a totally honest assessment of an individual officer’s unique skills and capabilities as compared to a baseline of his peers.
Of course this did not happen, as the slightest negative comment would almost always assure an undeserved denial of promotion… hence the infamous OER inflation creep emerged… where almost everyone was awarded “walk on water” evaluations. Consequently, continuing PME (professional military education), endorsements from higher headquarters, the officer’s official picture, error free and perfectly typed and punctuated paperwork, assurance that every available space for comments was used, additional duties, and a dozen other irreverent factors that had little or nothing to do with the officer’s primary job as a fighter pilot or WSO.
All of this flawed process was exacerbated by the fact that this occurred during the “pre-computer era”, thus denying the rater with data banks of “flowery remarks”, synonyms, spell checkers, and printers. It was during this period that a Marine F-4 exchange pilot was assigned to my flight.
After about six months, I got a letter from HQ Marine Corps requesting that I prepare an OER for this pilot.
The USMC OER form was enclosed, with instructions that it was to be prepared by me, in my handwriting and returned as a single copy. There were several blocks to be checked, followed by a space for remarks that was only adequate for two to three short sentences… then above my signature block was a question with two choices: “Would you go to combat with this officer?” Check either “yes or no.”
Talk about cutting through the crap! I was impressed at the time and to this day have never forgotten its bottom line simplicity and brilliance. Try applying that test to the current crop of “leaders” who are in charge of America ‘s destiny…
Maybe it’s just me, but I damn well would not willingly go to combat with any of them. How in hell did we let this happen before our very eyes… on our watch? We as a nation had better get a grip, turn out in mass for the 2012 national election and throw these self-serving jerks out of power before it is too late. I fear that four more years of political correctness, blatant socialist/Marxist policies, lack of backbone and disregard for our constitution will do irreparable damage.
If we are to remain the greatest nation the world has ever seen, which was built on the loyalty, integrity and sacrifice of generations of patriots whose gym bag our current leadership couldn’t carry… we best get it done on Nov 6.
Can’t say I disagree with this one at all!!!
I think that “Would you go into combat with this officer” is likely the only evaluation criteria that matters. Then the rater should be REQUIRED to go into combat with the people that they pass.
Outside of my military friends circle – no one thinks like this. We have become a nation of waffle fries unwilling to stand on principles, morals or just show a basic level of common sense.
Nov 6th will tell the tale – Marxism or freedom . . . . wish I could say I feel confident freedom will win . . .
Let’s go into combat!
Nov 6th!
Indeed Sir! If it matters I would go with you and several others out here. Pretty much everyone else, not so much.
And I’ll have your six, Keads!
Can’t say much for “with” the current crop, but I’m about good to go “against” the whole batch. Ready when the rest of you are.
“Would you go to combat with this officer” really does get to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it?
RE-ELECT NONE
I have gone into combat with good men who served from the front….not ‘present’.
LL- Concur!
eia- Agree on all counts!
Ed- 🙂 That it will be!
Keads/drjim/Murph- Thank you!
Joey- Yep… 🙂
Skip- Same here!
That whole integrity thing, one has to remember there was a time that a man’s word was his bond. And believe it is still so.
I remember as a Drill Sergeant my personal goal, was to produce soldiers that I would take to combat, not a number of successful graduates – a percentage number measured by number crunchers or folks that don’t care about the soldier, just results.
I used to proofread OERs for my ex-husband. I complained at the frequent use of the word ‘stellar’, but he explained to me that there was a certain set of words that they were expected to use and if ‘stellar’ didn’t appear on the OER, the review-ee would never get a command. So someone could be ‘excellent’, ‘capable’, even ‘courageous’ – but ‘stellar’ was the deal breaker.
Having experienced the grade inflation endemic in the Navy FitReps of my generation (and of course as I got more senior my “input” essentially meant I was charged with writing my own FitRep; which to my shame, I did); your story returned me to an earlier – and better in many ways – time and an example of those standards still being maintained, albeit in an isolated instance.
When I was an enlisted Marine; up through Corporal (at least in those days) we got “Pro and Con Marks” two numerical grades on a 4.0 scale. “Pro and Con” were not, as one might assume for “good and bad” but for the two categories; Proficiency and Conduct. In my first FitRep as a Sergeant, my Battery Commander’s sole written comment was “I would go to war with Sgt ___”.
In nearly the only FitRep of my senior years that I didn’t largely compose myself, I asked the Ambassador I worked for to provide input; his writing (which was inserted verbatim into the FitRep) ended with a sentence of which I am most proud; “As a former Army Ranger and Vietnam combat vet, I will give this officer the highest praise I know; I would gladly go into combat under his leadership.”
I’m still working to live up to those remarks…
And yes, I’m with Murphy…
Earl — Ditto. I remember the Chief of Infantry (the Major General in charge of the School of Infantry at Fort Benning to you blue-suiters) told us (albeit by video) that he didn’t give a damn if we graduated a single soldier out of a particular cycle — so long as EVERY soldier we graduated was someone we would take into combat in our squad.
In fact, the Cold War plan for WWIII and Reserve training divisions was exactly that — train three cycles of recruits, and deploy as a combat division with the third cycle. (Theory being, the Reserve Drill Sergeants would be replaced by then by lightly wounded combat vets who were RTD early on and run through DS School.)
I heard (possibly just Rumor Control) that the Soviets solved some serious QC issues during WWII by a similar expedient. Program officers and the QC managing officers in individual factories had fairly short tours, the final duty of which was to be assigned to the front to command a unit equipped with a random selection of the stuff made under that officer’s oversight. Sounds like a plan to me.
Yes, yes, NFO, how many ways can you say the Marines will cut through the crap? >>>NOW. on your face & let’s see 20 “MOUNTAIN-CLIMBERS”… …ready: ENERGIZE !!<<< CLASSIC post, my friend. BZ.