DTIC ADA509003: Redefining how Relative Values are Determined on Fitness Reports

Redefining how Relative Values are determined on Fitness

Reports

EWS Contemporary Issues Paper
Submitted by Captain S.R. Walsh
to

Maj Tatum
19 Feb 08

1

Report Documentation Page

Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington

VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE

19 FEB 2008 2 ' REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED

00-00-2008 to 00-00-2008

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Redefining how Relative Values are Determined on Fitness Reports

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

United States Marine Corps,Command and Staff College, Marine Corps
University,2076 South Street, Marine Corps Combat Development
Command,Quantico,VA,22134-5068

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

___ ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF

OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same 3S

unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)

12

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

The current process for fitness reports remedied the
previous system that had become overly inflated and
undermined many Marine's faith in the reporting process. 1 A
major component of the current fitness report process is
the use of relative values, which compares the value of
each report to the rating history of any given grade based
upon a reporting senior profile. 2 Though the current
version of the Marine Corps Fitness Report process is
widely viewed as successful, its use of relative values,
which is one of many measures used to determine promotions,
can sometimes be misleading. In 2004 GySgt Antonio S.

Payne, at the time a USMC Career Counselor, showed in his
paper, "Misleading Raw Scores on a Master Brief Sheet", how
a new fitness report can impact on a Marines relative
valued For example, introducing a new report with a high or
low average into a reporting seniors profile can skew his
overall average and give a Marine a potentially

Jostlin, Robert E. "Fitrep 2000" Marine Corps Gazette Mar
1996 pg 48.

2 Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, Performance Evaluation
System. (PES) Washington D.C., Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps, 2006, Paragraph 8012 pg 8-8.

3 Payne , GySgt. Misleading Raw Scores on a Master Brief
Sheet 2004 quoted in Hovey, Captain Eric. Fuzzy Math: Do
current relative values tell an accurate story? February
2005, pg 4.

2

unflattering look during the promotion process. 4 To
alleviate these issues, the process in which relative
values are assigned should be changed. A Marine must be
allowed to establish a relative value prior to writing his
or her first fitness report because the current method for
determining an average can be faulty, relative values
change over time, and the system does not have any merit
for the first two reports written by a reporting senior for
a given grade.

Process

To generate a fitness report average the reporting senior
rates mission accomplishment, individual character,
leadership, intellect and wisdom on a scale from A-H. A
score is then generated per marking ranging from 0-7. 5
These scores are then totaled and an overall average is
assigned to the report. 6 The score is then compared to the
scores of other reports written on the eguivalent rank and
a relative value is assigned. Relative value for a fitness
report is currently determined after the average score of
three reports is taken. The report is further assigned a

4 Payne , GySgt.

5 MCO P1610.7F, (PES) a. Each block in the marking gradient
for each PARS has an assigned numeric value as follows:

A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7, and H (not observed)=0.
NOTE: Block H (not observed) has no value and does not
factor into the calculation of the average, pg G-2.

6 MCO PI 610.7F (PES) .

3

value between 80 and 100 in order to compare the report
with other Marines'' reports of the same rank written by the
same reporting senior. 7 The information is then shown on
the Master Brief Sheet, which is the key document used by
promotion boards for determining if Marines will be
promoted. Though the process for determining the relative
value of a fitness report is relatively straightforward, it
is not without its critics.

Current system can be faulty

A Marine must be allowed to establish a relative value

prior to writing his or her first fitness report because

the current method for determining an average can be

faulty. Captain Erik Hovey expanded upon GySgt Payne's

topic in his research paper Fuzzy Math: Do relative values

tell an accurate story, by saying.

While originally designed to add numerical
objectivity to the subjective task of writing
fitreps, relative values can be skewed and can
paint a misleading picture of the Marine reported
on. 8

In his paper he also demonstrated how introducing a new
report into a reporting senior profile with a high or low

MCO P1610.7F, (PES) Once calculated, the relative value
will appear on the MRO 1 s MBS in numeric fashion on an 80 to
100 scale, pg G-2.3
8 Hovey, Captain Eric, pg 4.

4

Since

scoring average can impact upon the relative value. 9
relative values are an integral part of the briefing
process to determine if a Marine will or will not get
promoted, it has the potential to skew an average and
potentially affect a Marines chance of promotion. 10
Relative Values can change over time
A Marine must be allowed to establish a relative value
prior to writing his or her first fitness report because
relative values can change over time. One phenomenon with
the current relative values is that a reporting senior may
change their average marks over time. For example, a
Second Lieutenant may evaluate a Staff Sergeant differently
when they are Major, based upon a change in perception in
what skills are important to a Sergeant. 11 The newest
version of the PES manual written in 2006 has attempted to
guard against changing relative values by showing a
relative value at the time of processing on the new Master
Brief sheet.However reporting seniors can also inflate
reports over time, by continuously marking their Marines

9 Hovey, Capt Eric.

10 Payne, Gunnery Sergeant A.S.

11 MSgt Klarzuk interview.

12 MCO Order 1610.7F (PES) The Relative Value at the Time of
Processing. This numeric value reflects the relative value
of the MRO's fitness report based on the RS's rating
history for Marines of the same grade as the MRO as of the
time of processing of the MRO's report. This number is a
constant and once calculated, it will not change. Pg G-2.

5

higher and higher. Inflated reports were one of the

reasons the previous system was replaced. 13 Worst yet is a

reporting senior who attempts to manipulate his average by

altering his or her reports:

Reporting seniors who attempt to change their
rating philosophy may either positively or
negatively affect the relative value of reports
for MROs they previously rated. 14

Current system does not "count" for first two reports in

each given grade

A Marine must be allowed to establish a relative value
prior to writing his or her first fitness report because
the system does not have any merit for the first two
reports written by a reporting senior for a given grade.
Since a relative value is not determined until the
reporting senior writes three reports on a specific rank
the relative value does not apply to the first two reports.
Obviously the promotion board will take into consideration
that a reporting senior has only written on only one
Marine. So the question is how many reports are enough to
generate an average that accurately depicts the Marines
written on? If relative value aids in determining how the
Marine reported on "stands up" against other Marines of the
same rank who a reporting senior has written on, then a

13 Jostlin, Robert E. pg.48.

14 MCO Order 1610.7F (PES) Paragraph 2(e) (2) pg 8-9.

6

true depiction of a relative may not take effect for some
time. 15 In Capt Hovey's research paper he pointed out that
certain billets just do not have the opportunities to write
a large sampling of reports. 16 Therefore it may be a
number of years before you can generate enough fitness
reports to take an average. The down side of this is that
the Marine reported on may appear before a promotion board
during that time. The way to change how relative values
are used is to allow the reporting senior a chance to
determine his or her own relative value prior writing his
or her first report.

Counter-argument

Allowing a reporting senior to establish his or her own
relative value prior to writing his or her own first report
represents a shift in how a relative value is used. The
intent behind establishing a relative value prior to the
first report though is to paint a better picture to the
individual at the promotion board briefing a Marines'’
fitness report and determining if he or she should be
promoted. One of the arguments to continue the current
method of determining relative value is that the process

15 MCO Order 1610.7F (PES) The profile is a snapshot of the
RS's rating history. The relative value of each report is
based on how the report compares to the RS's rating
history for a given grade. Paragraph 8012 2b, pg 8-8.

16 Hovey, Captain Eric. Pg 6.

7

should not be changed and relative values are only one
piece of a Fitness Report. After all, the section I is
intended to give a more accurate "word picture" of the
Marine reported on. 17 However, by adding a Marines'
relative value that he or she has predetermined to the
briefing process it can paint a more accurate picture of
how the Marine reported on compares against other Marines
and increase or decrease a Marines chance for promotion.
Another argument to continue the current method is that a
second lieutenant does not have enough experience to
determine his or her average when he or she first writes
reports. Under the current system a relative value is
determined anyway after three reports, regardless of how
much experience a reporting senior has. A problem with the
current system is that a second lieutenant writes three
reports and relative value is immediately assigned. If
those three reports represent three "strong performers" the
reporting senior has established a high average. If the
Marine Corp determines that an individual is qualified
enough to be a Marine officer then that officer should be

17 MCO 1610.7F (PES). The RS will make mandatory comments to
make a word picture for all observed reports. These
comments are intended to provide a more complete and
detailed evaluation of the MRO's professional character and
may address any entry made in sections A through H or as
the Reporting Senior deems appropriate. Paragraph 4012 2a.
pg 4-40.

8

qualified enough to determine his or her own average. In

addition by allowing a reporting senior to establish can

lend more creditability to the first reports that he or she

writes on and can prevent a high or low average. Most

importantly by allowing a reporting senior to pick his or

her own average it will guard against a reporting senior

writing to a perceived average. In addition the reporting

senior will maintain consistency throughout his or her

career as a reporting senior. The PES manual clearly

states that reporting seniors should remain consistent in

their reports and warns against reporting seniors inflating

reports over time by stating:

Reporting seniors who attempt to change their
rating philosophy may either positively or
negatively affect the relative value of reports
for MROs they previously rated. 18

A final argument, and admittedly the strongest against

changing the current method, is that the system would

eventually revert back to the "old way" in which everyone

was marked above average. 19 The best method for ensuring

that reports are not inflated once a reporting senior

establishes his or her own average is by rating a Marines

performance based upon "displayed efforts" not some type

relative value. If a reporting senior writes to "displayed

18 MCO 1610.7F (PES) Paragraph 8012 2(e)(2) pg 8-9.

19 Joslin, Maj Robert E.

9

efforts" vice his or her own average then they will not
have to worry about inflating their reports. 20 An
established average is a method for guarding against
inflating reports over time. By allowing a reporting senior
to determine his or her own average it frees him or her up
from writing to an average and writing as he or she should
to a "displayed effort." Ultimately the relative value can
then be used for what it was meant for as a benchmark to
compare the Marine against other Marines of the same rank
in the reporting senior's average.

Conclusion

The current Fitness Report System is undoubtedly better
than the last one. One thing that has remained constant and
always will in the Marine Corps is the evaluation of our
Marines and determining their potential for promotion.
Further refining the process and maintaining steadfast
vigilance over the system will only improve upon a valuable
tool. Giving a reporting senior the flexibility to
establish a relative value prior to writing his or her
first fitness report will add merit to the report and
circumvent issues with the current process. At the very
minimum the United States Marine Corp and its leaders must
continue to educate reporting seniors on the Fitness Report

20 MCO 1610.7F (PES) Paragraph 4006 4(b) pg 4-23.

10

System and most importantly steadfastly guard against

inflated reports. The importance of maintaining the

integrity of the performance evaluation system is stated by

the Commandant's guidance within the PES manual.

Every officer serves a role in the scrupulous
maintenance of this evaluation system, ultimately
important to both the individual and the Marine
Corps. Inflationary markings only serve to dilute
the actual value of each report, rendering the
fitness report ineffective. 21

Word Count

1763

21 MCO 1610.7F (PES) Paragraph 1004 pg 1-5.

11

Bibliography

Joslin, Maj Robert E. "FitRep 2000," Marine Corps Gazette
80, no. 3 (1996):48-49, http:"search.proquest.com.

Klarzuk, Master Sergeant Daniel J. Career Counselor,

Personnel Management Support Branch (MMSB). Interview
by Capt S.R. Walsh, 17 January 2007.

Hovey, Captain Eric. Fuzzy Math: Do current relative values
tell an accurate story? February 2005.

Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, Performance Evaluation System.
Washington D.C., Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps,

2006.

Payne, GySgt A.S. Career Couselor, Enlisted Assignments
(MMEA). Misleading Raw Scores on the Master Brief
Sheet. 2004.

12