Selection and Cybernation

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection

1964 Selection and cybernation.

Davis, Allen B.

George Washington University http://hdl.handle.net/10945/13007 N PS ARCHIVE 1964 DAVIS, A. )

lllIE LECTION AND CYBERNATION

ALLEN I. DAVIS

n HllDBHi

Ml] ^fflHBll 111

mi: Jw itflft])

ii n if

jj I t! ':'•!.-

) J : DUDLEY , y KNOX LIBRARY Seta* .val Postgraduate NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SO California tei-ey, MONTEREY CA 93943-51 01

¥c

lieutenant Commander Allen B. Davis, 5.S.I. // bachelor of Science t). 3. Naval Academy, 1950

A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the School of Government, Business and International Affairs of The George Wash- ington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration

Thesis directed by

Karl B. Stro-rjsew, Ph. . Professor of Public Administration

Washington, D. C.

April, 1964

DUDLEY KNOX LiBRARPy NAVAL POSTGRADUATE <5ri4rtr01i *TEREY CA Fallot

TAB] :T5

Page vamnmnoB , 1

Chapter I Background — History - Mechanics - Purpose 3

II Executive [.valuation — A Shadow Area to Which problaw are Inherent 13

III The Validity of Haval Officer Appraisal Under the Present System ...... 24

IV Application's of Cybernation to the Selection System 55

Ifff 11111(11111 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY , , 77

iii

PREFACE

The selection of Naval Officers for promotion is the final step in

an evaluative technique perfected prior to World War II. The costs and

complexities of today's weapons systems coupled with the constant threat

that the products of our selection process may be given the "acid test"

in nuclear war, places a burden, heretofore unknown upon the system. Evalu-

ation (military, business, or personal) is a faltering science, crippled by

limited qualitative measures and varying criteria, that inhibit standard-

ization or infallibility.

Publications, both in military and business areas, abound with

criticism of current evaluative techniques, proposals for new wonder cures,

sad laments that the situation is bad but nothing can be done to improve

it. The writer does not feel that the picture is either as bright or as

dark as it has been painted. In this age of electronic computers and their

capabilities in the field of integrated data processing — it would seem that a cybernetic approach to the problem of officer selection might al-

leviate the difficulties of evaluation somewhat. The writer would propose

cybernation not so much as a cure but as a prophalaxis to the inherent difficulties of executive evaluation. More specifically this thesis will be concerned with the identification of those problem areas in the selection of Naval Officers for promotion that cybernation may be helpful in solving.

The writer has used historical researdh methodology to identify the

problem areas of naval officer selection and to determine the capabilities

of electronic computers, which for the purposes of this paper, constitute

cybernation. The research used as a point of departure a survey of the

literature in the field of executive appraisal to establish a broad base

for considering the Navy's system of executive appraisal. The chapter on

executive evaluation was not conceived in terms of an exhaustive study in

the area — it is more a survey of what management appraisal entails and a

presentation of general thought currents in the field. It is provided to

give scope to the study of the Navy evaluation system by acquainting the reader with the milieu from which it springs. The research then moved into the specific field of selection and related areas through a survey of pertinent theses and official U. S. Department of the Navy Publications and a survey of pertinent articles appearing in The United States Naval Institute

Proceedings , a semi official organ of opinion for the U. S. Navy. Research on applicable facets of the electronic computer was done in basic texts on the subject, and manufacturers publications.

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND — HISTORY - MECHANICS - PURPOSE

History of Selection Process

Selection is the policy framework within which the leadership of

the U. S. Navy is determined. The future of the Navy is directly tied to

the degree of accuracy with which the selection process functions. Officer

programming is a continuous spectrum, each facet — procurement, training,

assignment, promotion, attrition and retirement — directly affected by the

selection process.

Selection by definition connotes a choice between alternates, a

problem first experienced by Adam, The first personnel selection device

was probably a club and the criteria — the survival of the fittest — with

major emphasis on survival. As the personal quality of selection has dimin-

ished the complexity of the process has increased. Ironically, many of the

complexities of present day executive evaluation are a direct result of

trying to maintain a personal touch in a program that is too complex for

intimate knowledge of those who must be evaluated.

History

There was no official U. S, Navy during the Revolutionary War,

Ships sailing under the U. S. flag were privateers cojamissioned to service.

The Navy was commissioned as an official branch of the United States Armed

Forces in 1796, At that time selection for leadership was effected on a

. — ^

basis of political and personal favoritism.* 'fhe first recipients of such

favors failed so spectacularly that it was immediately apparent to the Navy

CosBEiss loners that thia was no way to officer a navy.*

The forefathers of the Navy in an effort to equalize opportunity

settled upon seniority as a basis for selection.-* Such a system is easily

administered and inherently fair to the inferior officer; however it negates

superiority and equalises opportunity to all on a basis of longevity. This

is a selection process closely kin to selection on the primitive level —

"survival of the fittest" — not in terns of ability but in staying power.

Flag rank did not denote superiority but a strong liver. Admiral William

S. Sims has stated that during this period of naval history, promotion was assured by keeping ones digestion in order and refraining from striking superior officers.^*

With only minor modifications seniority determined succession in the Havy until 1

An indication of the seriousness of this latter shortcoming may be seen in

* ' *-" "- > — ' — — — — — 1 1, r ii . i i. ii.i i.._. x 8exford ?. Wheeler, Jr., Cdr., U.S. 8. and Sheldon H. Kinney, Cdr.,

. . "The Promotion of Career Officers," United States ffeval Institute Proceedings (June 1954), p. 638. g I,oc. cit .

^ loc. cit .

**da. "William S. Sims, U.3.K. "Promotion by Selection," Unitea States Naval Institute Proceeding . (June 1934), p. 769.

^Wheeler and Kinney, op. cit .. p. 638.

the promotion patterns between 1880 and 1900. During this period it was unusual for an officer to rise above the grade of Lieutenant" with less than 25 years of service; however, the average time served by officers in flag rank (Coronodore and Rear Admiral) prior to death or incapacitation was 1.3 years.'

Mnor modification to the seniority principle of selection was accomplished by the Naval Personnel Act of 1899 in that it provided for a Selection Board to designate a certain number of senior officers for retirement. Since selection was on a basis of unfitness, the stigma made the act very unpopular. It was repealed in 1915.

The first selection system based on merit was instituted in 1916 by the Naval Personnel Act of that year. It provided for selection to the grade Commander10 and above on the basis of those officers "best fitted" to serve in those grades. In 1934, the provisions of this act were extended to cover selection to the grades of Lieutenant Commander and Lieutenant.

Unfortunately the criteria for promotion of the "best fitted" seems to have been the amount of experience, which in the final analysis is only another facet of seniority. The attrition rate among junior officers was so high that the act was amended further in 1938 to allow selection of the "fitted r '

"See Appendix I for grade structure of United States Navy.

'Wheeler and Kinney, op. cit ., p. 6A3.

8 Ibid., p. 639.

9 Ibid., p. 639.

See Appendix I for Navy Grade Structure.

11 as veil as the "best fitted." This change had not been in effect long

enough for evaluation before the advent of World War II.

During the war years , 1941-1946 promotion was done on a time in

grade basis to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding service — the needs of the service dictating the time in grade.

The basis for the promotion system now in effect is the Officer

Personnel act of 1947 which codified the entire selection process leaving little to chance. This act has been liberally amended — in fact hearings on further amendments are currently taking place, as a result of the Bolte

Committee recommendations. 12 In spite of all amendments the mechanics of the law are essentially unchanged and call for selection on a basis of merit tempered by experience as signified by time in grade.

Mechanics of the Selection System — 1964

*!"he organisational structure of the Navy is pyramidal in form — the most common organisational structure. There are fewer numbers of officers in succeedingly higher grade levels until the highest ranking officer is reached — the Chief of Naval Operations. The selection process determines: (1) the distribution of officers among the various grades or hierarchical levels of the pyramid, (2) the speed at which officers move between grade levels, and (3) promotion and/or attrition between grades to

1 :neeler and Kinney, op. cit .. p. 639.

12Letter of Peputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric to Honorable John A. KcCormack, Speaker of the House of Representatives dated March 9, 1963. (To amend Title 10, U. $. Code.) Bolte Committee Legisla- tion.

' insure a smaller number of officers in each succeedingly higher grade level.

Cf the three factors of the selection process listed above, only

the third factor, pro-notion and attrition, is immediately controlled by

the Navy. Histribution both as to grade percentages of total officer

strength and absolute ceilings on individual grade levels are essentially

fixed by law.-"* Similarly the rate of flow between grades is essentially

determined by law.™ sq^ leeway is permitted the Secretary of the Navy in

determining the two factors listed above, but this digression is in the

direction of more stringent requirements only. °

Certain minimum procedural requirements are set forth in law to

govern promotion of officers; however, Congress has passed no laws that

in effect dictate who is to be selected or on what basis — these are

strictly Navy problems. ' The decision as to the identity of officers to be selected or to fail of selection has been left to the discretion of the

service acting through its agent, the Selection Board.

15Ray C. Nedhara, Rear Admiral, U.S.N. "Officer Evaluation and

Promotion," United States Naval Institute Proceedings , (March I960), p. 64.

^Title 10 U. S. Code — Articles 5442 and 5447.

^Title 10 U. S. Code — Article 5768.

^•"The Secretary of the Navy may prescribe the promotion zone in accordance with the limits imposed by Article 5442 and 5768 of Title 10 U. S. Code.

^Congress provides by law, Title 10 U. S. Code, Article 5701, the rank structure of the Selection Board, rules for convening, the oath taken by Selection Boards and the minimum length of time the Board must sit in deliberation.

, •

The Selection Board is comprised of nine officers appointed by the

Secretary of the Navy; its purpose is to select for promotion those officers

best fitted to serve in the next higher grade within the numbers allowed

by law. The members of the board are senior to and have specialty back-

grounds roughly in proportion to those under consideration. To a major

degree, members are stationed in the Washington, D, C. area and all are

"due course" officers, having neither failed of selection nor achieved

promotion ahead of their time. These nine men are judge and jury to act

on the evidence presented in the fitness reports of those who stand before

judgment

The file of Fitness Reports (Officer Evaluation Reports) comprises the historical record of performance and personality traits upon which an officer is judged for promotion. The Reporting Senior must, at least annually, submit an evaluation form on each officer of his command, A short descriptive paragraph may be included also to indicate specific accomplishments

The Secretary of the Navy either in the Precept establishing the board or in separate correspondence usually gives guidelines to the Board regarding selection criteria. These guidelines are binding to the extent that the Secretary of the Navy approves the action of the board. Through briefings, the Chief of Naval Personnel also makes certain recommendations to the Board. The Board may proceed in any manner it desires as these instructions are not technically binding. (To completely ignore the Chief of Naval Personnel is somewhat unlikely, however. ) The criteria to be used in each selection process is set by the Board involved — however, the latitude of action is restricted by the necessity of basing selection on

Fitness Reports. After all records have been studied, one of the reviewers presents each officer's case to the whole Board. It is at this time that the vote is cast for or against selection. Six of the nine votes are required for selection.*®

Objectives of the Selection Process

there is no argument but that a selection process is a necessary part of any organisation. Without promotion and attrition personnel would move neither up, down, nor out. However, there is more to selection than merely to guard against stagnation. Admiral Needham states that, "The object of any promotion system is to assure superior leadership."^

The basic stated objective of the Selection Process is to fill the needs of the service with the best fitted officers in relation to the organisational structure and the rate of flow set by law. w

Distribution is a constant factor reflecting the organizational structure. The flow rate is a constant determined in terms of the amount of experience and physical qualifications deemed necessary for promotion

^^The information on the format of fitness reports and the action of selection boards is a compilation of facts gathered from interviews with the Head of the Fitness Report Section and the Assistant Head of the Promotion Section of the Bureau of Navtl Personnel} information appearing in articles by Vice Admiral Fitahugh Lee, B.I . ., "Selection for Pro- motion," U. S. Department of the Navy, Line Officer Personnel Newsletter.

(fcarch 1963), p. 3; Ca.pt. Worth Scanland, "Standby . . . Vote," United States hi aval Institute "roceedings* (June 19&3), pp. i»0-A7.

^Needham, op. cit .. p. 64.

°"The key phrase in nvitry precept is that the board shall select 1 those officers best fitted to serve in the Navy in the grade of .*"

L«e, pp. cit .

and the amount of individual advancement needed to prevent stagnation. 2 -^-

Although the flow rate provides for some deep selection, selection boards

exercise this option limitedly below flag rank. In other words a man is

rarely selected before serving his time in grade even though he may have

exceptional ability. There is still considerable reluctance, at least

below flag rank to forget seniority. The question arises as to whether

this is, in fact, a misguided attempt to be :, fair" to all by rarely singling

out anyone for special attention; or, if it is an equally misguided attempt to equate experience with ability — two factors which may be related but do not necessarily co-exist. It is evident that although the stated aim is to secure the best fitted for leadership; the "best fitted" has little chance of selection unless he has served a specified number of years. This is not too far removed from the selection precepts of the 19th century.

In truth it is not so much that the Navy is reluctant to recognize merit as it is r,h-vt the Navy lacks the proper tools to identify merit and act accordingly. As a consequence selection is not so much promotion of the

"best fitted" as it is attrition of the least fitted. The ilavy is not alone in lacking tools to measure executive quality as may be seen in the consideration of the problems of executive evaluation in a later chapter.

However, the Navy certainly increases its problem of executive evaluation by its continuing lip service to universal excellence in its officer corps.

Even attrition takes place under the flag of prevailing excellence. No one is really a bad officer — there just isn't enough room at the top. 2

^Needham, op. cit .

?2 Lee, op. cit .. p. 3.

A quick look at the Navy's officer performance rating oystera compared

to the familiar grade level of school children shows considerable reluctance to admit anyone is inferior.

Performance

Very Good - Outstanding Excellent Frequently Mtisfactory Inadequate Excellent

leadership

1-100 Out- **££ Superior Excellent Marginal ^^factory standing ^

f B D F-

The comparison of leadership rating raises two questions; (1) How can the Navy find so many superior officers that the average man can be considered excellent? or; (2) Why is the Navy staffed by such inferior officers that we have to cover it up by calling failure marginal? Obviously neither question represents the truth of the situation — the Navy is certainly not staffed by inferior men — nor is it staffed by supermen. If, indeed, everyone is so excellent why the stigma attached to the pass-over?

Vihile one pass-over is not the end of a career, few "excellent" officers are promoted after receiving one.

It appears that promotion is still basically a matter of time in

12 grade as opposed to attrition which is decided upon a basis of merit.

If the prime objective is to find the best fitted for the needs of the service — the problem is being approached from the back side if more emphasis is placed on experience than on ability.

In satisfying the needs of the service, emphasis on experience is usually a by-product of organizational rigidity where as emphasis on ability is apt to inspire organized productivity.

CHAPTER II

EXECUTIVE EVALUATION — A SHADOW' AREA

IK WHICH PROBLEMS ARE INHERENT

The gears which move the organization are oiled by personnel evalu-

ation. The basic job of a rating system is to keep an organization dynamic.

A system that evaluates poorly clogs the action with the sticky gum of in- efficiency. Moreover a rating system that is predicated upon an evaluator who puts his opinion down in black and white and stands responsible for its veracity is more apt to keep the gears moving freely, "Nearly every action affecting people is based in part on judgments about them conscious or unconscious. In my experience, intuitive, unexpressed judgments are much less likely to be sound than those which result from examination and dis-

cussion . . . ,**

The success of an appraisal system can be determined at two levels

— it should strive to supply accurate information which helps to fill organizational vacancies. It should also provide a performance standard by which the employee can evaluate his own contribution to the organization.

M J. A. Patton claims that . . . executives more than other employees benefit

^Harold Mayfield, "In Defense of Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business Review (March-April I960), p. 8*:.

) u

from performance standards and need to hare their own performance rated."2

Not only can a man perform better when he knows how he is expected to act

— he will give more allegiance to a company that is not afraid to stand

behind its standards.

Unfortunately there is no fool proof method of executive appraiaa .

The proportion of management literature devoted to this subject demonstrate* both the difficulties of appraisal and its importance to the organization.

It is unusual to pick up an edition of a professional publication such as

Harvard Business Review that does not contain an article on executive

appraisal or a related area of executive development. The United States

flaval Institute r-Toceedingg — a publication designed "for the advancement

of professional, literary and scientific knowledge in the Navy," has explored the problems of officer evaluation repeatedly .3 Appraisal is obviously an area of interest for military and profit oriented organisations. Executive appraisal appears to be an area of general confusion for two very important reasons; (1) ambiguity as to what an executive in and what he does and (2) diversity of opinion on what constitutes nerit and how it can be measured.

2John A. Patton. HThe Six Enemies of Executive Output," Sun's

Review and Modern Industry . (March 1963 t p. 47.

^Cdr. Roy C. Smith, 9,8.8. "Personnel and Promotion Reduced to its Simplest Terms," United States Waval Institute Proceedings, (July 1906), p. 801.

Capt. J. K. Taussig, U.o.N. "A Study of our Promotion and Graded

Retirement iaws," United states Naval Institute Proceedings , (April, 1924), p. 50.

Ada. William 8. Sims, op. cit .

The articles cited are a random sample.

The difficulty of defining leadership or executive quality, was well

expressed by the Ohio Symposium on Leadership. After ten years of study,

the following statement was made.

"We hear on many sides the call for more effective leadership. Training and research programs were developed during the last war to improve the quality of military leadership, have continued and expanded. ... In International affairs as well as here at home, the demand for leadership of a high caliber has b©t.n frequently expressed. ... A good many of these statements appear to take the point of view that the answers about leadership are known, that we know what a good leader should do, what is expected of them, how they should change to meet the demands of new situations, and so on. Most of us in the social sciences however, are painfully aware of how little we do know about leadership, in a documented way."^

The inability to define leadership inhibits the development of direct means for measuring or appraising it. Indirect measurement therefore becomes the only present means of coming to grips with the problem.

The physical scientist has used the indirect method successfully. He proves the flow of electricity in a circuit not by seeing the electrons move, but by viewing the result of the flow, the illumination of a light bulb, the deflection of a needle.

Not only is executive appraisal approached indirectly, but it is also faced immediately with a decision as to whether evaluation of personality, performance, or both will be most fruitful in identifying merit. The social scientist's problem is made exceedingly complex by the dynamic, changing nature of the subject studied — man. The social scientist does not have the luxury of studying leadership under laboratory conditions — he cannot

*Sllis I. oeott, Status Expectations and Organizational Behavior ,

(Col*1®***®* Ohio, The Ohio State University, Research Foundation, 1953 }, p. 6.

study a single facet while keeping other fucets constant. 5 for this reason,

empirically derived dita oftsn can be explained only by subjective inter-

pretation of the other factors which xay influence the study. With the

subjective approach we open the door to error — "Any proposition bottomed

on human judgment is subject to error. "^

Evaluation, on any basis, raises certain questions for soanagement.

1. Is the standard by which the evaluator functions constant and

suited to all the needs of the firs for whom he judges?

2. Are criteria valid — do they measure what they purport to

measure?

3. Is the system suitable for all ratees under all conditions?

The degree to which evaluation is made on a subjective basis increases the

chance of arriving at totally invalid judgments. However since no objective measures are at hand and since the organisation is somewhat dependent upon

evaluation of some sort — management must try to arrive at a subjective evaluation systera that can answer some of these questions favorably.

Tt would be a rare appraisal system that could answer affirmatively to all the questions raised. Where could any firm in this modern era of varied backgrounds hope to find an evaluating team with identical personalities and environmental and aoral backgrounds, that could be depended upon to render identical evaluations of varied personnel that would be

5 Theodore Haiman, Professional Management — Theory ®,nd Practice . (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1962), p. 17. 6 illard I. Bennett, Kanager Selection. Education and Training . (!!ew York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959), pp. 191-92.

consistently to the advantage of the fi It ia a r&ru nan indeed whow> analysis of the world around hia is not colored to a certain extent by the weather, his physical condition, climate of hie job and othor such factors that may well vary from day to day.

Management, considering the second question — does criteria measure what it proposes to measure — is f*ced with the fact that precise measurement, quantitative or qualitative, is impossible when that which ia measured is intangible. Nor can management avoid a subjective approach by measuring performance as opocsed to personality. Granted, tnat a greater degree of objectivity may be reached in judging performance but in the final analysis it is upon a subjective basis that the decision is made whether the job was done well or indifferently, slowly or with dispatch. Even where such quantitative sureties as "did the salesman meet his quota" are relied upon — someone had to subjectively set a quota.' Management approaches the problem of executive appraisal with subjective criteria used, not so much as a sword of truth, but as a last straw.

Within the field of subjective criteria there are those which apply tc performance and those which apply to personality. The trend in management today is to consider evaluation of performance more significant than

'Henry H, Albers. Or^ani^ed Executive Action — Pecislon-Maklng

Conromlcation. I .eadershi p (New York I John V'iley tad Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 470.

evaluation of personality.^ In* biggest problem of determining the validity

of subjective criteria in reference to personality is in determining which

personality traits are sufficiently significant to marit inclusion on an

appraisal sheet. 6ucees fui executives do not ©van share siadiar back-

' grounds mich less »iiidlar personalities. All tntcreating stuoy took 2U

recognised leadership criteria (personality traits) and in the light of

these c-: ;npj.ryd thb three ffcMHtl leaders ftapoleon, Frederick II of Prussia

and Robert r . Le-. Under consideration were:

Adaptability Earnestness aindness Calianess r

i i ll iiiii. i n ii ii I i n m i w h n a ll n l u ll i n ii I pi i i ii i wii i nu ll iimi m ! » n n ii m^—mm—»^m—mm g 0,, In effect, this means ttn the soundest basis for judging an individuals ability to handle a higher job, is how weH he is dealing with similar problems in his present job." Cdr. Arch Patton, 8.S.B., "How to Appraise Executive Performance," Harvard Business Eeview, (Jan- uary-February, I960), p. 6h.

". . . it is a sound practice to go upon the theory that the best indicator of what a person is going to do is whet that person has done." Robb . -nsboreugh, "Seed for Evaluating Employees," Harvard

Business Review . (Juno, 1955), - 5.

"The various definitions of leadership sees to indicate that leadership means getting the job done effectively in a specific situation, n rather than a suaasation of a number of character traits. Cdr. Alvin . Dallin, U.3.N., "Effectiveness? The Basic Criterion," United States ftaval

Institute Proceedings , April, I960, p. 76.

^Of one hundred executives compared the only historic relationship was that they exceeded the average pay for their age group within two years after joining the conpany. Kelvin Anshen, "Price Tags for Business Policies,"

Harvard Business Eeview , (January-February, i960), p. 63. 10 Fdrrund I, Gibson, "Leaders and Leadership," United States Naval Institute? Proceedings. (March, 1954), p. 301.

ber ccwnpleting the tabulation the researcher found that these three men enjoyed only three personality traits in coas&on — adaptability, courage and earnestness.^ This does not indicate that all other factors are not significant personality traits of a leader — but that one cannot predict specific traits in all leaders with any degree of success.

Among those who follo*^ the "personality" cult of executive appraisal we find that leadership may be confused with gentlemanliness or just being an all round good fellow.* 2 "Unfortunately, the executive characteristics appraised in development programs — leadership, initiative, dependability, judgment, getting along with people, ambition and so on — uo not necessarily measure a wan»s effectiveness on the job."-^

In addition to the problem of determining what personality traits should be judged — anagement committed to personality appraisal is functioning in an area where the subjective approach is weakest, specifically because it is subjective. Backgrounds, vocabulary and standards vary too

^Gibson, op. cit ., pp t 301-06.

^"Modern doctrine has confounded the characteristics and qualifications essential to an outstanding (or even a reasonably good) military leader with those which make a man a gentleman or a nice fellow to know."

Cibson, op. cit .» pp. 3 : 1-C9

"Furthermore, in the search to recruit promising young executives for business positions, business leaders instinctively lock for people who are less contemplative, who care less for books, music and art, than for conversation, parties and other familiar forms of sociability. In short, being a "regular fellow" far outweighs, in the eyes of many men, the importance of growth as a mature, reflective individual." Reprint of letter from John Brigante, "From the Thoughtful Business Kan: letters," Harvard TJusiness Heview, (March-April, 1956), p. 164.

^Anshcn, op. cit ., p. 64.

widely for evaluation teras to translate with accuracy.^ Moreover — the

evaluation of personality falls somewhat within the special confine of

Psychology and Psychiatry. P'en in these fields study years to say with

authority that it is difficult to analyze personality with any predictable

>! degree of accuracy. Man is adept at posing and covering up. i'hus . . .

it is one thing for an executive to react to another personality when

siting him up. 1 We do that every day. But it is quite another thing for

* manager to delve into the personality of a subordinate in an appraisal that goes into the records and affects his career. The latter amounts to quackery —- to a pretension of training or knowledge, which is not in fact

" possessed."1

The historical approach to executive appraisal has had definite

"psychological overtcnes. !?1° Appraisal which is personality oriented is a more accurate measure of what is thought of a man than it is of the

1 degree of efficiency with which he functions. ' As stated earlier the

Management trend is away from personality appraisal.

The emphasis which management presently puts on performance appraisal do<*s not mean that personality appraisal is never useful. There are times when personality factors color performance appraisal. Performance judged below potential is based upon the personality factor of evaluating a r«an*s

fibers, op. clt ., p. 3-2, 335.

^iva F. Kindall and James Gatsa, "Positive Program for Perfor- mance Appraisal," Harvard -uainess Review. (November-December, 1963 )» p. 15A.

**Patton, op. cit .i p. 6A.

17Ibid.

potential. This may be judged in part on past performance but it is inter-

laced with an unknown quantity of will and incentive. Good leaders are

often renowned as "a good Judge of people. !:i8 ;>uch leaders have a reputa- tion for accuracy in intuitive evaluation (which tends to be a subtle blend of past performance appraisal and personal reaction) effected through some radar like perception of quality.

However, despite the fact that soaae men can and do appraise accurately without reference to a formal rating system, the increasing complexity of modern society prohibits such evaluation because it is predicted on face to face contact. Increasingly those appraised have never been seen by the appraiser — neither man may be known by the final decision shakers. The best criteria for dealing subjectively with an unknown performer is the raan's performance. With this point in mind let us consider the third question raised about evaluating systems. Is the system suitable for all ratees under all conditions? The obvious answer is that performance rating is more pertinent than personality rating.

The executive in pure research doesn't med the pleasing personality that a personnel executive will. However, study shows that performance ratings may not be universally applicable either — obviously to grade performance which doesn't exist is "to do efficiently that which shouldn't have been

^%or example Frederick II, N'apolean, Lee, Grant.

•

done at all. ^9

The neetss of the organization and the functions necessary to satisfy

these needs villi vary from company to company and tfm department to

partraent. However, while applicability cannot be a random attribute it is

achievable if those who use performance rating take the tine and trouble tc fit the fona to that which it is to measure.

The linal step in any evaluation pptgrta is the act oi moving people, up, down or out. This rceans promotion, uismissai, or treading water. The decision although deeply involved with people isuet be determined not in terns of feelings but in relation to stated ne^ds of the corporate body. The following quotation points to the difficulties involved.

"Any promotional system, however well designed will have soss weaknesses. *vny preposition bottomed or frusan judgment is subject to error. Mistakes will be made. Then too, people change. No people-centered undertaking is ever ststfe. Character changes, attitudes fluctuate, motivations shift. Ken once ambitious and

*9peter Drucker, "Managing for Business Effectiveness," Harvard Business fieview (May-June, 1963), p. 154.

n executives performance can only be appraised in those areas in which he has an opportunity to work. This fact seems obvious yet the majority of performance methods make little or no provisions for the wide range of difference in the work of different executives. The same performance rating form or procedures apply to ail rsen. This can lead to frustration or the pert of the conscientious rater and to an over-all decrease in the effectiveness of an appraisal program. At best, many of Use ratings that are made are sin-ply meaningless because the position of the executive does not call for the performance that is to be rated."

John K. Hemphill, "Executive Job Descriptions," Harvard business Keview ,

( Septembe r-Oatobe r , 19 59 )

pttMA go soui'. All of which tunt what the procsas of mIm&Umh must contain an element of feedback. Those responsible for promotional decision making HBtt continually audit and assess their b work. A final promotion cannot be made and forgotten; it iraist be followed up. Psrlotftc trait and performance uvalu&tions supply the running feedback needed to control the promotional process. These evaluations; MJ in time reveal a promotion to have been a gPMa &#> take or that tbo individual has begun to coast or regress, despite cl&ssroou. education or on-the-job irai. it is raQcivl. When a case of thi& sort becor>jes clearly evident, it must be dealt with firmly, courageously and with dispatch. For, no matter how careful the prouotional decisions, unless the feedback built into

-;••- is u. ••<•".;, .v-va vitta weak spots that cripple the entire structure, or MM segment of it.

So the p. .'enal decision makers may, en occasion, be

forced to use the periodic trait Mi Mfl za t. valuations as the basis for negative decision — and a hard one at that, demotion or discharge being the only answer. And, knowing <*s we do that or** often than not demotion only compounds the difficulty, the most

frequent remedy will be discharge. And we know further i thout a system th-tt M)WI the power of decision from the hands of those closest to the problem, these nauseous but necessary actions simply win net be taken. For the culprits M*l&**6f~*MMBd supervision has a constitutional inclination to shield the problem because of th*» persons,] unpleasantness the indicated corrective step portends."**'

attempt vd.ll be made to decide the merits of on* system of hiring and firing as opposed to another. The point is that the evaluative process is a shadow area faced with making difficult decisions every step of the way. It is a process witnout em for it must continually evaluate itself and reevaluate the people for whom it is responsible.

XT management finds evaluation difficult but necessary in order

to function, hov ;nuch nor* dependent the imvy is on ite appraisal MVfcai .

No business firm employs as many nsen, in such diveree jobs, at sc -'any plants, 'nvolvcd in a mission so vital to the welfare of oar country.

20 Benn©t, op. cit .. - . 191-92.

CHAPTER III

TH" VaiLITC OF NAVAL CFFI \L

UKDBR THE PRESENT ST3TJH

The discussion of executive evaluation in Chapter II posed three

questions which could be used in investigating the efficiency of an ap-

praisal technique. They involved the validity of criteria, the constancy of evaluation symbols ano the applicability of criteria. One measure of the efficiency of any rating system is the validity of the criteria upon which it is based. Another measure is to determine the relationship between the points measured and the function of the wan who is measured (applicability). One does not measure the sise of an egg by noting its color nor is a garbage mm evaluated by his reading skill.

Unfortunately, there are no easily defined valid criteria to apply in the selection of naval officers for promotion. To identify valid criteria — one must know the purpose of the system and the function of those rated.

Admiral Needham believed that "The object of any promotion system is to assure superior leadership."1 The Navy seems to equate management ability with leadership, this Is evidenced by such statements as "In

^-Needham, op. cit .. p. 63. At the time that Adciiral Necdham made this statement he was assistant Chief of Naval Personnel for Personnel Control

order that the Havy may perform its function, one element is absolutely

essential — identification of leaders in order to select them for pro-

motion." 2 Another indication that leadership connotes ability is that

the points on which an officer is appraised are by and large traits hope-

fully attributed to a leader .3 The avowed purpose of the selection system

is to select for promotion those officers who are best qualified to serve

in the next higher graded Viewed differently, this means that promotion

is not a reward for past services performed, but rather a statement of

confidence that the promote© will be competant in the grade to which he

is promoted. In essence, then it is leadership potential rather than just

leadership that the system must determine to accomplish its purpose. This

distinction is of concern for two reasons j (1) Few realise what the Fitness

Report form was conceived to delineate; (2) TYm fact that it is potential we seek to measure, complicates the issue of determining criteria, by in- flicting another intangible besides leadership into the equation. Looking at the problem -— we seek to identify potential equal to the job to be filled; measuring it through performance and personality appraisal geared to a subjective concept of leadership.

If leadership potential is to be measured, leadership saust be defined.

2 Gallin, op. cit ., p. 77.

3See Fitness Report form — Appendix 2.

*Fit*hugh lee, op. cit .. p. 2.

"By Naval leadership is meant the art of accomplishing the Navy's mission through people. It is the sum of those qualities of intellect, of human understanding, and of moral character that enable a man to inspire and manage a group of people successfully.

S ffective leadership, therefore is based on personal example, good management practices and moral responsibility."

This official Navy definition is paralleled closely by statements found in

management literature. ° Such a definition, while inspiring, does not pro-

vide many specifics on which to base criteria. Let us examine the Navy's

officer evaluation form (Fitness Report )? and the criteria by which it

seeks to measure leadership potential.

The Navy uses a traditional approach to evaluation with a forst that

is a composite of performance and personality trait appraisal. Also included

on the report are sections to denote? (1) comparative or relative rating

of the officer in reference to his peers and others in the command; (2) the

reporting senior's opinion of the officer's desirability in specified types

of duty; (3) a recommendation for the next type of duty assignment; (4) &

narrative section provided for comments upon significant strengths or weak-

nesses of the officer being evaluated.

*U. S. Department of the Navy, General Order 21 . Part I, paragraph 1*.

^"Leadership is the process, the activity of imaginatively guiding, directing, and influencing the action of subordinates so that they willing^ strive toward mutual objectives." Haiman, op. cit ., p. 447. See also "... Judgment will consist largely in continuously setting before the subordinates high standards of excellence with which they cannot fail to compare themselves. Their ability or inability to reach these standards will generally become so apparent to themselves and their colleagues that they will respond with better effort, or resign." lewis William Norris, "Moral Hassards of an Txecutive," Harvard, ^uslnes;.- ;ievie.'W. (September- October, I960), p. 77.

?The official title is "The Keport on the Fitnes3 of Officers," Navpere 31C, revised April 1962, Known throughout the service as the "Fitness Report."

These latter four sections will be consented upon briefly before discussing the performance and personality appraisal which usually forma a more iiaportnnt part of the report.

The comparative section has three obvious functions. The format used —

vorall Evaluation (a) In comparison with other officer© of his grade ana approximate length of service, how would you designate this officer? (b) For this report period indicate in (b) how many officers in his grade you have desig- nates in each category of {&)

One of the A very fine dependable An acceptable Unsatisfactory highly out- officer of & typically officer (adverse) standing great value effective officers I to the serv- officer have known ice

<*)

(b) "8

— provides a rough ranking of the ratee among his peers in the command (b) and a rough cross check (a) on the performance appraisal found earlier in the Fitness Report. This section also provides a rough gauge of the marking habits of the reporting senior. 9 it is as equally useful as a cross check

on the "integrity" of the marker as it is an apt.ruisai of the markee .

8U. S. Department of the Navy, "Report on the Fitness of Officers."

Navpers form 310 , revised April, 1962.

9;'. 0. neparttnent of the Navy, ftoqffs Inst. 1611.12 . End. 1, p. 14,

April 4, 19£ .

The following section of the Fitness Report on Desirability;

16. Desirability: Considering (1) the possible requirements of war and pence, (2) this officer's professional and technical competence, and (3) the adaptability of this officer to the varying conditions of naval service, indicate your attitude toward having this officer under your command in the following types of assignments:

Partic- Prefer not I ot ularly J^refer Pleased Satisfied to ^^ . bserved de6ire to most to have to have (aaveree)

(a) Operational

(b) Staff or Administrative

should correlate roughly with the comparative section above ~ when it doesn't the review board would want to know why and likely seek the answer in the narrative section.

The narrative section is another cross check on the author of each report and may shade the evaluations given in the performance and personality trait areas (especially in tarsus of any inconsistency). As the instruction states for completing Fitness Reports:

"b. In selection for promotion and assignment to outy, considerable weirht and reliance are placed on the reraarks made in this section. Accordingly, every effort must be made to present any

10U. S. Department of the Havy, "Report on Fitness of Officers,"

Mavpers 310 . April, 1962.

relevant facts which make the report a complete ami comprehensive evaluation. The comments will substantiate and must be consistent with narks assigned in other portions of the report. Comments Ray be made regarding references in section 13. The restrictions applying to section 13 relating to letters of censure or other nonjudicial punishment, ami nonpunitive letters of censure issued under paragraph 128 (c), Manual for Courts-,MartiaI, United States, are equally applicable to this section. Performance of duty or facts upon which the above are based may properly be mentioned in this section. "H

The section provided for assigned duty recomnendaticn gives the fitness reporter a chance to conceptualise the evaluation by specifying a billet which he feels the officer appraised could fit well, 12 This section could also give the review board insight into the ©valuator's marking habits.

The Performance of Duties and

Personality Appraisal

When an officer's career and appraisal sheets follow an expected

1 pattern -* the performance of duties is the most important portion of the

**U. £. Department of the Navy, Supers. Ins. 1611.12 , Incl. 1, p. 16.

1 2 Ibld .

^That would be when assignments have followed a reasonable pattern of sea-shore rotation and the evaluations in the four sections described above have a consistant relationship to one another and to other marks on the report.

In this connection, see a discussion of the apparent detrimental effects of Post Graduate education and other factors on the career of officers contained in the U. S. Department of the Navy, Review of Manage- ment of the Department of the Navy. (Dillon Report), December 15, 1962, p. 111.

)

Fitness Report. ""* The development of appraisal technique in the previous chapter noted that performance was considered as valid a basis for evaluating leadership potential as can be found — (it lends itself to scat* quantitative evaluation and is aore objective than personality divination).

The actual performance criteria enumerated are:

li*. Performance of Duties

(a) Present Assignment

(b) Shiphandling and seamanship

(d) Collateral duties

(e) As ______watch officer

(f technical specialty ( )

(g) Conraand potential or ability

(h) Administrative and management ability

^Certain factors of the rating system are considered privileged and are not disclosed — i.e., the weighting of various sections of the Fitness Report. Pugene B. Berger stated that he was so advised by the Navy, la "Aviation CowtDand Assignment — Problems and Procedures of Per- sonnel Details in Selecting Naval Aviators for Aviation Cosaaand Billets," his unpublished Masters thesis, The George Washington University, I960, p. iv. The writer feels that it is likely that performance of duties is the psost heavily weighted section of the Fitness Heport because: (1) performance has professional (management) preeminence as a measure of ability. (2) the United States Any* whose guiding precepts are not too different fro® the U. S, ^avy, states on its appraisal sheet that it assigns 300 of a possible 240 rating points to present performance and another 20 points to command potential. Both of these factors appear in the Navy Fitness Report under "Performance of Duties" (see evaluation form above).

While performance is historically sound as a measure of ability the criteria

above by which performance is judged have some serious shortcomings. Toe

instruction states that the mark for 14-(a) is to represent the officer's

overall performance — the professional quality of his work and that the marks 12»-(b) and (h) are, "in combination to substantiate the mark assigned

nl in » Present Assignment.* 5 Although evaluating performance the evaluator

is given few criteria related to function by which to evaluate his subordinate. This is generally true because of the heterogenous activity of naval officers in ranks from Ensign through Captain, in various specialty fields, afloat or ashore, staff and ship.-*-® However, at the present all officers are considered in the light of the evaluation form shown above.

Kven a double form based on rank would do no more than equate the amount of experience that goes into the standard of excellence.

In the current instruction for completing the report, reporting seniors are cautioned not to err in the direction of "using the sans criteria in the evaluation of both junior and senior officers."*^ *a point well taken," is the first reaction of the reader. However, since no division of criteria is offered on the evaluation sheet, the reporting senior is thrown back on his subjective haunches to try and figure just how much he ought to expect a junior officer to produce. (This could be

*%. S. Department of the Navy, Supers. Inst. 1611.12, Bfttl. 1, April 4, 1962, p. 13.

^the Navy and Coast Guard are now studying a double form based on rank to help with this problem. The Air Force uses two forms. (Gee Appendix II).

*ty. S. Department of the Navy, Supers. Inst. 1611.12. Fncl. 2, Ch. 2, June 20, 1963.

. j

as much the individual marker's standard as the Navy's expectation . ) For example, it is logical not to expect the same quality of shiphandling frost a new ffrfflifn aboard ship and the Skipper. However, determining no** much shiphaneillng to expect is like the old riddle:

"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck If a woodchuck could chuck wood*,n

Of the eight iterss listed, sotse officers could be marked in all areas while others could be marked only in one or two areas. (Sea© officers

**** ftsvsr be observed in Airmanship moreover all performance areas listed

(b) and (h) are not equally significant. Karrowing even further — all collateral duties are not the same).

There is obviously a need for criteria related to function in performance appraisal. A study, completed under Kavy contract in order to identify all skills needed in Navy billets,^ has direct bearing upon the question of leadership potential evaluation. SflM 126 specific activities were identified as being performed by naval officers of various grades and activities, both afloat and ashore. W ^g^ Q£ the Conclusions reached by the research panel are of particular interest

(1) All 126 activities identified fall into eight independent

functional areas:

18 Ralph M. Stogdill, Carroll L. Shartle, et. al .. Patterns of Administrative [erformance (Columbus Ohio; The Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State Univer- sity, 1956), p. 98.

^Th© randomness of the sample could not be judged by this writer. However, it appeared to be of sufficient else to prevent major bias in a study of this type.

(*) Public relations

(b) Professional Consultant

(d) Technical Supervisor

(e) Schedule — "'roceciure Maker

(f) Maintenance Ad^dnistrator

(g) decision Maker

(h) Coordinator

(2) Not all functional areas were represented in any one billet.

(3) No one function was included in all billets.

(4) The degree to which any function was pr sent in the activities

performed by any individual varied with rank, billet title,

type ship, staff and shore activity. 2^

These three last points all serve together to point up the variability of rating factors not only at different levels of management but in terms of the job performed. Performance evaluation based on the eight specific functional areas listed above should be more informative than evaluation based on the general functional areas now used.

The diversity of function at different levels and in different tasks is recognition of the fact that leadership is composed of more than performance. A capable performance in one area is no guarantee of a good performance in another. Moreover, it is sometimes opportunity which dis- covers the leader — chance foresight put him in the rii'ht place at the ripht ti«ne. Haiman claims to have identified four najor factors impinging

20 8togdill, Shartle, et. al ., o-K . cit ..

;

upon leadership. He states ". . . that leadership is to a great degree a

nebulous concept. The most helpful approach is to consider leadership as

influenced by (1) situation, (2) by the group of followers, (3) by the characteristics of the individual and {U) the various means which are chosen to influence the interpersonal relationships ."^ For Itevy purposes one and two are basically assignment, which accounts for the presence of the officer at the situation and the identity of the "followers M point

three is personality trait and point four can be considered performance .

The variations of both level (rank) and situation (job requirements) militates against the effective use of a set performance criteria or single report on all naval officers. This holds true when personality traits are considered also. Those traits deemed to signify superior quality will vary from rank to rank and with the situation. It is this fact coupled with the general unreliability of trait appraisal that re- duces the criteria designed to distinguish qualities of leadership to points of questionable value. The relative merit of trait vs. performance appraisal, has already been discussed. The following statement, however, will add scope to ths problem at hand.

"The inadequacy of this approach is obvious as seldom, if ever, do any lists agree on the essential characteristics. The lists are confusing, using different terminology and differing in

the number of characteristics required . . .

^Kalman, op. clt ., p. LUb.

) ) )

. . . Writers of the trait list theory, in listing the characteristics, do not indicate which of the traits are the most important ones and which are the least important ones. A further weakness of this theory is that the trait studies do not distinguish between those characteristics which are needed for acquiring leadership and those which are necessary for maintaining it.

Although personality characteristics of the leader are not unimportant, those which are essential vary considerably, depending

upon circumstances, and even . . . the different functions . . . demand different abilities of leadership. Some of the characteristics which have been considered essential to a leader, for instance, integrity and judgment, can be found in any successful man within an organisation and not merely in the leader. Many of the characteristics which were considered essential for leadership are not in- herited but can be acquired or modified through learning. R^2

With this analysis of trait appraisal in mind, consider the traits to be appraised on the Fitness lieport.

20. Leadership

(a) Professional Knowledge (Comprehension of all aspects of

the profession)

(b) Moral Courage (To do what he ought to do regardless of

consequences to himself

his command, the service and the nation)

(d) Force (Ine positive and enthusiastic manner with which he

fulfills his responsibilities)

(e) Initiative (His willingness to seek out and accept

responsibility

(f Industry (The seal exhibited and energy applied in the

performance of his duties)

^Hainan, op. cit ., p. 443.

)

(g) Imagination (Resourcefulness, creativsnese, and capacity

to plan constructively)

(h) Judgment (His ability to develop correct and logical

conclusions

(i) Reliability (The dependability and thoroughness exhibited

in meeting responsibilities)

(J) Cooperation (His ability and willingness to work in

harmony with others)

(k) Personal Behavior (His demeanor, disposition, sociability

and sobriety)

(1) Military Bearing (His military carriage, correctness of

uniform, smartness of appearance and physical fitness)

(m) Self•expression (oral) (His ability to express himself

orally)

(n) Self-expression (written) (His ability to express himself

in writing)

Each trait taken separately has some intrinsic worth yet as a whole they call for subjective analysis in a field where the backgrounds of the marker affects to a major degree the quality perceived. They are also subject to semantic confusion — at times the rater would be hard put to differentiate between moral courage and loyalty or force and initiative. One man's

Imagination is another man's hare brained idea . Obviously a man cannot demonstrate all of these traits in any one job or at all levels of management. For example management function calls for top management to form policy with vision and integrity (g. - imagination - c. - loyalty); middle

. ,

management to serve as liason to interpret policy through organization

and delegation of work — (which will involve a professional knowledge,

- h. - judgment - m. - self expression written and - n - orai)j and first

line management to supervise with reliability . diligence ana technical

knowledge ( - a. - professional knowledge, - d. - initiative - f . - in-

dustry, - i. - reliability,)2^

The fact that the words currently in vogue to express "Leadership 11

change is demonstrated by the study of descriptive adjectives and phrases

and the frequency of ©ecurrance in the Fitness Heport form:

"Factors Hated Since the Establishment of the Officer Fitness Report System in the Navy

Out of the forty-eight officer Fitness Heport forms analysed the following factors (descriptive adjectives) or descriptive phrases were found with the frequency noted, oince in some cases the wording of the factors or phrases was different but of the sans general mean- ing, they were combined under a general adjective or phrase.

Descriptive Adjective or Phrase Frequency

1. Considering the possible requirements of the naval service, in peace and in war, have you any objection to said officer being under your irarsediate coras&nd. 42 2. General bearing and military appearance 39 3 Judgment 26 4. Neatness of person and dress 26 5. Health 25 6. leadership 25 7 . Cooperation 25 8. Initiative 24 9. Ability to command 23 10. Industry 21 11. Force 21 1?. Intelligence

, ^Garda ; . Bowman, "What Helps or Harms Proa»otability?' , Harvard

?usinf?s3 Hevlew , (January-February, 1964), p. 6-26.

Descriptive Adjective or Phrase Frequency

13. Attention to duty 20 14. Loyalty 19 15. Fndurance 19 16. Administrative work 18 17. Conduct 17 18. Qualification as deck officer 17 19. Qualification as executive or division officer 16 20. Manner of performing duties 16 21. Present assigraient 16 22. In comparison with other officers of his rank and approximate length of service, how would you designate this of icer? 15 23. Aptitude for the service 15 24. Condition and efficiency of command 14 25. Reaction in emergency 14 26. Perserverance 14 27. Moral courage 13 28. Sobriety 13 29. Professional ability 12 30. Ship handling 10 31. General conduct and bearing 10 32. Professional qualifications 9 33. Executive work or ability 8 34. Presence of roind 6 35. Tact 6 36. Performance of duty 5 37. £eal, Intelligence, and judgment shown in instructing, drilling, and handling en- listed men. 5 jf« Physical and nervous endurance under strain 5 39. Hate in technical competence in his specialty 5 40. As staff officer 4 41. Temperamental qualities 4 42. Devotion to duty 4 43 Navigation 4 44. Gunnery and ordnance 4 45. Seaaanship 3 4^. Steam 3 47. Estimate of officer as a result of observing hiss in practical work 3 46. banner of giving cousaands 2 49. Firmness 2 50. Decision 2 51. Courtesy 2 52. Fducation 2 53 Justice 2 54. Patience 2

Descriptive Adjective or Phrase Frequency

55. Pliability 2 56. Self-control 2 57. Subordination 2 5ft. V;illingn«8B to assume responsibility 2 59. Kfficiency in the performance of duty 2 60. 'orals 2 61. As intelligence offie 1 6?. As signal officer 1 63. In engineroora and fireroom 1 64. Hanner and bearing in the performance of duty 1 65. Capacity 1 66. Zeal 1 67. ' rofessional aptitude 1 68. efficiency of sen under his special control 1 69. Performance at battle station or duties 1 70. Inspire subordinates at work 1 71. Effectively delegates tasks and authority 1 72. Transmits orders, instructions and plans 1 73. Maintains discipline among those under his command 1 74. Ability to work with others 1 75. Ability to adapt to changing needs and conditions 1 76. Collateral duties 1 77. Professional knowledge 1 78. Promotion potential 1 79. Management effectiveness 1*^4

This study emphasizes the difficulty of ascribing qualities to

leadership. It could well be used as an argument for grading leadership

as a whole instead of breaking It into sub-areas — either the officer

has it or he doesn't — a rose is a rose no matter how many petals. The

truth lies some where in between — In the realisation that although one

seeks to identify leadership it is difficult to quantify and no standard

is the sine qua non . To rely too heavily upon any standard of measurement in this area except as a confirmation of evaluation as shown by

2 ^U. 5. nepartment of the Navy, History of t,he Officer fitnesa

Report . Research Report 56-2-Navpera. 18A94, U. 5. Nav-il Personnel Research '. rtSUi ct.iv.ity, Kaahi>ett, ., aprll, 1956, pp. . .— :;j..

performance is d&ngcrous and/or misleading.^

In any endeavor so complex as trying to rate management, there can

be no dimple, single solution. Any attempt to find a working solution

involves considerable compromise between the ideal and the feasible. For

example, if evaluation criteria were ideal they would suit each job and

each individual in relation to the job, moreover, criteria would have to

change constantly as the job requirements and the ra tee's insight changed.

Carrying an argument to this extreme is ridiculous. A compromise in the

nature of three rank divisions as compared to the three levels of manage-

ment should not be administratively Impractical. A further compromise in

the nature of relating performance criteria more closely to specific func-

tion seems indicated. Perhaps this could be accomplished with the help of

the study on what naval officers do. In other words — just because the

Ideal is not practical is no excuse to rule out any possible Improvement,

The Fitness Report as a Marking Device

The Fitness Report forms the basis upon which the value of an officer is judged for promotion. The relationship between Fitness Reports

and selection for promotion is succently spelled out in U. S. Navy lieguia- tions:

"Article 1701. Fitness and Record of Officers 1. The fitness of an officer for the service, with respect to promotion and assignment to duty is determined by his record.

2 *The Aragr assigns this section a maximum of 22 out of 240 points. |«t -rry HtttSM t«port, 'ipendix 11*

— a

Reports of fitness are decisive in the service career of the individual officer, and have an important influence on the efficiency of the entire service. H *&

Official instructions for completing Fitness Report*2? provide a broader picture or the rationale behind the report. Significant statessents frot? the document are quoted below:

"(1) General. — (a) Reports on the fitness of an officer constitute the most important part of his recoru. They provide a record of the duty performance and the ssanner of its performance, the professional qualifications of an officer, commendatory or censorious matter received by hiu, notation of any disciplinary action, the general state of his health and endurance as it affects his value to the naval service, any special qualifications possessed by the officer, and a statement of his personal characteristics.

(b) Fitness reports are the primary basis for selecting officers for promotion and assigranent to duty. Realistic objective evaluations of individual officers are essential to the accomplishment of each of these tasks. The failure of a reporting senior to appraise and record either outstanain& performance or shortcomings of any officer under his coartam: net only is a Krave failure to meet a public trust, it is an injustice to the careers ii ii — i n i m w d—«———— n mam i^— mm *i »iw—i .i i n m—» ! » «*» >m mm—m—m»—«— Mm——jm—mjmmim m — i- —noil miai i m «m and opportunities of the able and cexseti-'nt .

(e) A report of fitness that is rightfully placed in the Officer Record maintained in the Bureau of Naval Personnel is not subject to withdrawal, alteration, or change except by special

authorization of the Secretary of the Navy . . . .28

Other provisions of the Instruction require annual submission of report on officers of the grade of lieutenant and above, and twice annually on officers below that rank. Additionally, reports will be submitted upon dcfailnent of either the officer reported on or the reporting senior, and upon certain special occasions. ^

^United Btatet Navy Regulations, (Washington, D.C.I Goveriwent

• Printing Office ) , 194

^U. S. Department of the Navy, Bupers. Inst. 1611.12. Encl. 1, p • X

28Loe. cit.

^Tbid., p. U.

Since the Fitness Report is the historical record upon which promotion

ie decided, problem area* of the form itself should be explored. The validity

of criteria, the heart of any evaluation, was covered in the proceeding section

and vill not be considered further at this time. Many problems of any rating

system are a by-product of and increase, in direct proportion to, the meaner

of people involved as evaluators. Kost of these fall into Wo categories —

problems arising from the varied background of the raters (semantic differ-

ences, varied standards); and problems growing froir. the separation of rater

and the decision maker (lick of understanding as to terms used and varied pur-

poses in marking). The problems in these areas couia be alleviated with an

efficient feedback built into the system, ot ted 9 imply the basic difficulty

In using the Fitness Report as a measuring device is that there is no built in

correction principle to compensate for the deviation of reporters. However,

one must understand how seriously evaluation is affected by this difficiency

(lack of feedback) to appreciate any claim that the system could be improved

to any great extent just by providing a self auditing feature. In order to

select for promotion, the Navy, through the Selection Board has to put its

faith in the evaluations as they appear upon the Fitness Report or figure

some reasonable way to compensate for possible error. Theoretically the

grade levels should fall within a certain curve — naturally. Ho jaany

Outstanding, so raany Above Average, Average or Belo«. However, because o£

the varied background of the mrkers — interpretations and standards distort the curve. Moreover, the Ideals or purpose of the marker will tend to distort the curve even further — both of these factors are compounded by

distance. In a small company face to face discussion and explanation can

rid the evaluating team of semantic variations and vascilating purpose.

However, acting through the Fitness Report the Selection Board is attempting

to make a personal evaluation on a basis of information that has become

depersonalized essentially through too much personality .

Reams have been written on the science semantics. Words do not

mean the same thing to all people. When two people use the same word but

interpret differently, communication breaks down. The whole evaluation

system in the Navy hinges upon coflssunication. Consequently, such breakdowns are serious. Some difference in interpretation can be explained by educational differences. However, this is rsut a small part of the problem — the larger difference in interpretation is a personal intangible that determines which nuance of a particular word or phrase comes closest to an individual's

own particular feeling evoked by the word. This is equally true with large

concepts and obscure phrases. This point is easily seen when we compare the descriptive phrases for like character traits on the »iavy and Army nerit rating forms z*®

CHAftAC? -I TIC KAVT DEFINITION A-KMY DiiTNITIOW

Koral Courage To do what he ought to do Intellectual honesty, regardless of consequence willingness to stand up to himself. and be counted.

Loyalty His faithfulness and tenders faithful and allegiance to his ship- willing support to super- mates, his command, the iors ana subordinates, service and nation.

3°U. S. Department of the Navy, Mavpera 310. (Rev. April 1962), and

0. S. Department of the Ar»y, DA form 67-5 . 1 4ugust 1963. See Appendix II.

. .

CHAK-vcrai NAVY DEFINITION ABHS DKFIHIT10W

Force The positive and enthu- cutes actions vigor- siastic manner with ously. which he fulfills his responsibilities

Initiative His willingness to Takes necessary and seek out and accept appropriate action on responsibility. his own.

Judgment His ability to develop nks logically and correct and logical makes practical conclusions decisions.

Cooperation His ability and will- Works in harmony with ingness to work in others as a team member. harmony with others.

Of these six items common to both the Army and ftavy reports, three essentially equate in the mind of this writer — Loyalty, Judgment, and

Cooperation. While perhaps related, the definitions of Moral Courage,

Force, and Initiative contain significant variations. The reader may not agree with this analysis; however, if this be true it only serves to prove that semantic difficulties exist. This point is further proven by the f^ct that the services found it necessary to define the terms at all.

delated to the problem of semantic differences is unconscious observer error.

"In psychological research it has been shown that individuals do not 'see* all that is 'out there,' and that these omissions are biased rather than r&ndom."^

This produces perceptual limitations in that man's bias enables him to see

2 only what he wants (i» willing) to see.-* Basically we observe the actions

^John H. Howard, Marketing Management . Rev. ed., (Homewood, 111.; Richard 0. Irwin, Inc., 1963), p. 72.

32 !bici., p. 73.

45 of others in terms of our own standard — H Kc is better, no better, worse,

"-3 than I ara. Personal standards and values are obtained from ". . .a wide variety of sources and have boon acquired over a long period of tine} hence, in aggregate a parson's value system may be riddled with incon-

sistencies."-''* Furthermore, ". . • few, if any, of a persons values are the products of ratiocination. Instead, they reflect faithfully the mores and ideologies of the cultures in which the individual has lived. "35 in this light it is only realistic to admit that "... bacKgrountis and experience of reporting seniors preclude consistent evaluations. Bias of reporting seniors makes some evaluation less than objective."3& ^j s poin+, s to the need for a self correcting evaluating system.

Four other errors in evaluation which are rooted in faulty perception were described by another writer as:

"1. Cienerosity error — i.e., people are essentially kind and hisitate to mark another individual low. 37

2. Error of the central tendency — to mark unknown items as •average.'

3. Logical error — if a ratee exhibits certain traits to a degree then he possesses other traits to a similar degree.

33in this context two persons with divergent standards can observe the same action and call it superior and average and each tell the truth at least so far as he is able to perceive it.

3%obert N. McKurry "Conflicts in Human Values," Harvard Business Review (May-June, 1963), p. 132.

35rbid., p. 131.

3^Gallin, op. cit .. p. 77.

37This writer thinks the terra generosity a misnomer — he feels people hesitate to mark low as a compensatory device or a hedge against the possibility that his judgments are wrong — the marker lacks assurance.

4. Halo effect — because general impression of a rates is at a certain level then all his traits are at that level, "38

A carry over from the habit of Halo appraisal may be seen in a

noted tendency to mark higher the higher the rank of the ratee so that

average Captains are marked Cut standing .39

In the operation of an evaluation system, conscious (preiaeditatea)

error is a major concern. This springs fro® such sources as: personal

standards that allow for acknowledged distortion} limited understanding of

the goals of the system} limited knowledge of the way the system works}

perfect knowledge of the way the syste© works plus misplaced loyalty — which brings us full circle to distortion again. H«re again it may be seen that part of the problem is the separation of rater and decision maker ~ iaperfect communication in terass of policy, goals (Havy standards)} lack of accord on how tc achieve these goals. The other half of the problem however is the variation of personal standards.

The rating form used to measure an officer's ability has been changed repeatedly because the longer the for© is in use the higher the reporters raark.^ Six different forms have been used since 1943.^ There is no explanation of the proliferation of higher starks, found in Navy literature

The marks on initial reports of each new form tend to be saore conservative*

3 8Joseph F. Foley, "The Adequacy of Officer Fitness Reports," unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1950

^Rear Adm. H. A. Koffett, U.S. . . *%.), "Coasaents and Discussion," letter in United States Kaval Institute Proceedings . (September, I960), pp. 111-12.

* Gall in, op. cit .. p. 77.

^Needham, op. cit ., p. 61.

However, after a selection board useets arid the Barkers have a gauc® as to the level of aarks at which people are selected, the aiarks go up accordingly.

ch reporter wants "his raen" selected. This is a self-defeating process which sends thi raarking level for selection even higher. The tragedy of this is that the rating system is riddled witn reporters who set themselves up as judge and jury — presuming knowledge they cannot possibly possess as to the needs of the service and the true relative standing of the in-

dividual concerned. I -".ssentia lly, intenticr ?tortlon occurs when the

Kavy's standards ana the markers don't match — End the taarker assumes that his are more valid. However, the standard set by the dureau of Naval

Personnel is not definatlve. The euphanistic tone of the grades appearing on the form was noted in Chapter IT. There seems to be no positive action taken against the high marker to discourage tits practice. Consequently, the officer evaluated by an honost tr&rker has a distinct disadvantage.

Moreover, the service has stated that it condones a certain amount of over marking as the expected procedure — this in spite of the fact that no correction is cranked into the systmu a Kavy study has documented three categories of Fitness Report writers as follows:

"a. Hie hard nsarker who accepts the standards a© defined on the

I itness Report.

b. The conscientious middle group of markers who are trying to guess the statistical nones which in fact do not agree with standards as defined on the Fitness Report.

c. The easy markere. Frequently these are converted hard Karkers who have become disillusioned with the system."^*

-- *'. . - «nt of the Nsvy, Opnav //Supers, eslrability ;md

Criteria for i-'arly .• ro-.otion or ^i vd Officers . Report of a study by the

Osnav/^upers personnel '-'onitoring Croup, Lee. I95#j . k • 1«i fctau ^>abin substantiates, in part, variance of marking: imi of writers — "... It is generally accented that all of us are guilty of ovemtarkin.<;. frobabiy none of us like it, but the establishment of inflated stai. requires one to go along wit inflation lest perchance he injure a thoroughly

ible officer, dabin, ojt . cit ., . ;A.

Perhaps part of the trouble la in trying to comxunicute a concept such as "outstanding" from one ;nan to another. An interesting prograa giving substance to an idea, is ilia ich to merit rating taken by Brig,

CJeneral Hiester in a field 3tudy in evaluation . Sin grade levels wore;

Promote Sow Proaote Karly Promote when due

not promote pending further Do not promote evaluation A3

Under such a systera, "Outstanding" has substance. Sot taany iserit it.

General Hiester dessonstrates most graphically that outstanding is not

cotavon i It is in its very nature unique, otherwise it would not be outstanding.

On the basis of the points discussed it may be concluded that the

Fitness Report Is only as accurate as its component parts. At the present, it is functioning below the optimum level of efficiency. It would appear that the report could be improved upon by relating marking criteria jaore closely to function of the rates and by perfecting a self correcting audit of the individual reports to compensate for the deviation from standard

(grade level interpretation as set by Jure&u of Uaval Personnel) by the

Markers.

Selection Boards as a Selecting Device

The Selection 9oard is the Navy's agent in transforming evaluation

(wsntal) into selection (physical). Their task is not an enviable one in

^-ravid H. Hiester, "lets have Level Haters," unpublished article, ". Commanding General, . Ordinance Center, Aberdeen, Md., p. $., 1963.

that the future of the Navy and the careers of many officers depends upcn

the quality of their judgment. This awesome task is certainly made no

easier by the knowledge that their decisions are based ©ore on opinion than

fact , ** The inherent deficiencies of the Fitness Report results in the

board buildinr its house (selection) on sosjae pretty sandy soil.

The technical qualifications of the board m®b*sr& were covered in

Chapter I. Certain ramifications of the appointments to the Board, however, need further discussion. Generally, board members are two or wore ranks senior to those under consideration. This seniority is supposed to equate with experience, useful in judging those under consideration. oreover, there is a subtle flattery in the appointment of these men to give their personal consideration to the selection of junior officers. There is also embodied in the appointments assurance .hat the mental capacity of mankind is equal to the task proposed. There is a tendency on the part of most people to believe what they want to believe, all evidence to the contrary.

The population of the Havy believes th.it the Selection Board gives equitable judgment because equitable judgment is what it was established to provide.

reover the population of the Navy looks to the Selection Board for a

personal evaluation and selection of the best fitted . What we seek is not only difficult, it is impossible. The physical and cental limitations of man and the size and scope and purpose stated for the selection system are mutually exclusive. As a result of this impasse a compromise has be effected between purpose and capability. The only fault in this compromise

^Gallin, op. clt ., .

. ^

is that the average officer does not recognize it as such and limits its

capacity by demanding the Itefy continue its public loyalty to personal

selection. The Selection Boards do as good a job as is humanly

possible. There is no quarrel with the action of the boards, only with

the system which gives the board a truly impossible task, complicated by

the varied values of the producers of evidence, the limited scope of criteria

and the semantic loopholes in the Fitness Report itself. When all factors

are considered, the greatest tribute that can be paid the system is not that

it works well, but that it works at all.

Consider the action of the Selection Board using as a point of

reference whit the public thinks it doos and what the service prescribes as its function. The major deterrent to the Selection Board living up to

its public l*r

is also the day, the hour, the minutes and seconds available or necessary to do any given Job.

By law, boards must be in session for at least ten calendar days.

During that time each officer on the board considers the record of a large group of officers. Because of the press of time they work principally from therraofaxed brief sheets, prepared by government clerks. The reviewing officer, using these brief she ts cm study 30 to 35 records in six hours.

That allows hirc to spend ten to twelve minutes on an individual's record.

^capt. Worth Scanland, "Standby . . . Vote," U. ;-. Naval Institute Proceedings (June 3963 )> p. 46.

46 Ibid., p. 45.

2tn time period for the record la about ten years and the number of Fitness

Reports averages out at about two and a half per year.**' this means that the board member can afford something less than a half minute for each report in the period to be considered. !7ven this figure is probably inflated presuming that the reviewer began work at 080C a*** completed the records at

1A30, we have only allowed 30 minute© of free time Tor lunch, coffee, and rest room — a rather unusual schedule for naval officers, particularly senior ones. Obviously 30 seconds is not enough time- to allow any of the contemplative art of judgment to be brought to bear. The reviewing officer is forced by the mother of officers to be reviewed to quickly categorise them According to a scale of merit. The time also imposes quantification of data as the only possible means of assessing the brief sheets and cate- gorising the officers. The use of symbols to indicate merit is quantification whether the symbol used is a word, letter, number, cows or chickens.

A narrative brief slUSt to be evaluated in 30 seconds would be hopeless.

The human eye is hard put to scan a page cf checks in numerical columns and come up with an accurate summation. This is what the Selection Board is asked to do under the title of Judgment. Clearly the ability to categorise on the basis of prepared brief sheets, demands neither experience or perspecacity. It is basically a job demanding attention ana endurance.

It is therefore evident that tbs majority cf selections are made through the application of the well known and useful principle « management by exception — review only the records that are questionable. This principle is implicit in the following statement:

^'Head, Fitness Report Branch, Bureau of Naval Personnel interview, December If, 1963.

"The beauty of the briefing sheets is immediately apparent.

Ksny records, in fact most of them, are clearly ' prossotabie * recor This is obvious at a glance frcra the briefing sheets, and if the per- centage to be selected is high (as is usually the case in the junior grades), those qualified as 'best fitted* show up quite clearly, as those not fitted. It is the officer with some anomaly in the pattern of their records, wi*~h so.^e question about their performance not readily answerable, who pose the problems, and fortunately there are not too many of these. "^

Since selection is practiced by exception within the limitations of a narrow time schedule, the writer sees a need for an optical scanner, which would eliminate clerical errors in transcription. The amount of time available does not allow any time for the reviewing officer to check for error, oince an officer stands or falls as a result of a scanning glance across his brief sheets he ought to have a guarantee that they are perfectly marked.

Another "public" assumption is that the reviewing officer can add to, or improve on the evaluation of the Fitness Heport and raise or lower the warks of reporting officer should his marks be out of line with the

Navy's standard or the grade levels of other reviewing officers. Since the

Board member does not know, except in rare circumstances, the officer being evaluated, the reporting officer, or the situations involved, any re-evaluation would be no more than an educated guess. If the officer involved is known to the review board, to tamper with his record — favorably or unfavorably — is unfair to all other officers reviewed. Within the time

•pan allowed for review there is no logical way for alteration or even compensation for high and low markers to be made logically or accurately.

A statistical analysis of marking habits prior to action by the selection board would be helpful. However, the assumption that the reviewing officer

^aorth Scanland, oo . cit . . p. 45*

53 could make such a statistical analysis within the thirty odd seconds he has to scan a Fitness Report, is without reason. Vice Admiral Fitahugh Lee stated part of the problem: "So many records are so similar in so many respects that, from a list of 100 officers of which only 40 can be selected, it is easy to pick the top 30 and the bottom 3C officers. But to get the

10 remaining selectees from the 40 officers left in the middle is most difficult. In this process the element of luck is undoubtedly present."*"

The distortion of individual marking habits produces this situation.

Add to this the intercorrelation of grade levels on all criteria, the length of time available for review, and the quantification needed to make the brief sheets usable. The logical conclusion appears to be that the Selection

Board haa little leeway for any action other than a mathematical decision.

Moreover, the physical demands of the task of selection impair consideration of the needs of the service and cause undue emphasis on maintaining a specified population at each rank level. The hierarchical levels of ruanage- ment are functional not an end in themselves. However the time available for reviewing records, allows lit.le or no time for consideration of special skills, abilities or backgrounds (i.e., sub-specialty). The long argued rearrangement of the lineal list would make no great difference in selection under the present system since there is no time for considerations much finer than "go", "no go" decisions.

The system as it now functions is data processing using man for a processing machine. Since man has only a limited capacity for detail, and since no abstracts are involved (all such abstracts having already received

^VAda. Fitzhugh Lee, U.S.U,, op. cit .. p. 3.

54 a quantitative symbol) there se ma no reason to refuse to use a computer which has a greater capacity for detail and a greater capability for accuracy in this area of handling informal I on.

CHAPTER IV

APPLICATIONS OF CTSSRHATJ

TO TH. : ::TION STotlM

The Navy 1 s selection process is not functioning as well as sight be wished. Toole embodied in research techniques and the electronic computer are available to revitalize the system. However, the Navy has made no discernable jaoveaent in the application of cybernation. The recognition of both the need for and feasibility of cybernation is hasqpered by a general lack of understanding of the selection process itsalf and the tools and techniques that could better the system.* Man tends to be suspicious of anything new. Change is often resisted. Often the first reaction of people to cosiputers is revolt and a panicky protest against reducing saan, in all his glory, to marks or holes on a data sheet. The fact that eaan is not reduced but enlarged, that the scope of evaluation is increased and jaade sore intensely personal, that evaluation can be more closely related to all the major functional areas of management, is lost in a flood of prejudice that seeks to argue, not logically or convincingly, but so loudly and constantly

*Staff writer, "New Tool, &ew *orld,» business Week . Feb. 29, I964, p. 70. For an example of violent military prejudice coexistent with a co&plfcte lack of knowledge of the computer ana how it functions see: Captain

. "Ulick, Jr., letter appearing in "Comments and Discussion," United States Naval Institute rroceetiings. (June, 1963), pp. 117-18.

that the enemy can't present its case at ail.'- If cybernation la to func-

tion at all it a)Uot win a major degree of acceptance fron: uw men whose

lives it seeks to benefit. This involves massive education and orienta-

tion. To make such a program desirable management has to envision what

cybernation could achieve if it were accepted.

Definition and iteck^round

Cybernation is embodied in the capabilities of the electronic

computer. $ore specifically, cybernation is th* utilisation of the computer in processing aata. SData processing is "the production of records and reports. 10 A more explicit definition states that aata processing is,

"... the preparation of source njedia which contain data or basic elements of inforaation, and th© handling of such data according to precise rules of procedure co accomplish such oper-

ation? as classifying, sorting, calculating, summarising, . reconlin^. "^

All of these elements are essential to the basic functions of raanageawnt — planning and control. These definitions belie the widely held supposition

^"The confusion caused by the lack of a clear understanding of the term automation, together with the emotional connotations which have developed, make a rational approach more difficult. In fact, the problem of ••Mantles has become so great th^t the term stay be avoided in the future by those seeking a logical understanding of the concepts involved. The deter- ioration of the word, however, should not cause us to underestimate the importance of these concepts." "looking Around: Automation for Management, Joseph L. Hassle, Harvard Business Review . (March-April 1956), p. 146-54.

^U. S. Executive Office of the President, Automatic Data processing

Glossary . (Washington, D. 0.1 U. S. Government Printing Office, Dec. I9©2), p. 40.

*toc, cit.

that data processing is a new phenomenon. Data has been processed for

hundreds of years using equipment no more elaborate than paper and pen.^

The abacus is an early example of a more elaborate computer. A table of

Napieran logarithms (to the base e) was published in 1614. The "common'*

system of logarithms followed later. These form the basis of the slide

rule which is an example of an analog computer. The abacus is a simple

6 form of a digital computer. In the final analysis the only thing really

new about electronic computers is the speed with which they function and

the fact that they can be directed. This speed frees man from the drudgery

of repetative action and allows him to make his unique contribution,

creative thought.' Thus using cybernation man can plan and control at a

higher level, using a wider range of pertinent information than has ever been possible before. a The computer is not a panacea for all ills. It can be a dis- asterous blunder, an expensive superimposition upon existing adequate procedures, or it can provide the means to solve personnel and executive development problems, and provide the key to superior employment of men and material. In the end we come to face the reality that the success of

cybernation is dependent upon the competence of management which utilizes it. It cannot function fruitfully without clear thinking, forward looking and detailed planning on the part of management which sets the keys clicking

^Richard N. Schmidt and William 1, Myers, Electronic Business Data

Processing , (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 1.

6 Ibid., p. 8.

M '%, K. Gaumnitz an . I, Brownlee, Mathmetics for Decision Makers," Harvard Business Review, (Kay-June 1956), pp. 48-56.

"Business Week, op. cit., pp. 70-71.

and the lights flashing. Cybernation should be viewed not as an end but

as a means to continually increasing growth — if management is to get a

dollars worth or more from each dollar invested, it must constantly seek

expanding uses rather than stand pat on past success.

For the Navy, the selection process is a point of departure into unlimited combinations of data utilisation possible in an Integrated data processing system. To limit cybernation to one area such as selection would be to make a toy of a master tool.* It is not the machine but human acceptance that limits the use. Education for acceptance in the limited area of selection will be difficult. However, the Increased potential of an evaluation system utilising cybernation is worth trying to win acceptance of such a program.

Cybernation and Selection

The computer does not originate thought. It functions in th© area of mathematical computation and is capable of rapid comparative analysis

(i.e., on© item is equal to, larger than or smaller than, another itemj.^

This comparison capability enables the computer to identify and place items in directed sequence. The use of numbers is basic to computers and it can accomplish or solve any problem that can be mathematically stated. The

^Specifically, in officer programming — procurement, training, selection, assignment, retention and retirement — cybernation would make possible a complete integration with the Navy's changing mission. With data processing these factors could be considered as a logical whole, with dynamically changing, inter-locking parts. All changes on all levels, could be visible at all times.

l°Range of speed — up to 3*000,000 arithmatic and logical operations p?r second. Business Week, op. cit .. p. 47.

computer cannot, however, improve upon the quality of the data that it is

'/en. It will do no more than it ia programmed to do.

The quantification or reduction of the information contained on

Fitness Reports to a numerical value is not a new concept. Quantification

of relative merit is easily symbolised by the relative relationship of

numbers. This concept, however, raises the question — how can you quantify

qualitative data" The answer is that the quantification is symbolic not

absolute and that the symbol ia functioning to measure not intrinsic value, 11 but one iter's relationship to another ( ioentification through comparison,.

On the Fitness Report the problem is to identify officers with the most

leadership potential — not to determine how much they possess. The selec-

tion process seeks to rank officers and sort them into groups of relative ability.

"... The process of quantifying intangibles . . . , is a process of making numerically explicit certain values that are always present in management thinking but in a ill-defined and cloudy form. Actually precision in doing this is neither possible nor necessary. But it is essential to assign numerical weights to translating from a language that permits the implicit to a language that compels the explicit."**

** "In considering the implications of the approach I have outlined, the intellectual issue to be grasped firmly is the necessity for distinguishing between quantitative specificity, on the one side, ana accuracy in the sense of identity with true values, on the other, iiany of us are victims of an educational indoctrination that blurs this distinction. The language of mathematics differs from the language of words not because it is inherently and inevitably more accurate, but simply because it is more manipulatable. Mathematics facilitates comparisons not invited by verbal statements. It is therefore a more powerful tool of analysis; it forces us to identify and account for cloudy assumptions; it leads us to more thoroughly documented conclusions . " Melvin Anshen, "Price Tags for Business Policies,'1

Harvard Busim-ss review , (Jan. -Feb. 196C}, p. 77. 15 Ibld .. p. 74.

The selection system as it now functions relies heavily on quantification

to facilitate review by the Selection Board, The Board then categorizes

the officers into levels for consideration. This process of ranking and

sorting at high speed and with great accuracy is a most spectacular skill

of the computer.

It is the speed of calculation and the concomitant ability to

handle massive quantities of data that commends the electronic computer.

as a tool of selection that would allow personalized attention to those

officers under consideration. Personalised attention does not mean that the board would spend a large amount of time in the study of each individual

record. "The sheer weight of numbers of eligible contrasted with the number

1 to be selected raake it necessary to use a semi-mechanical process." ** By personalised attention, the writer means that the board could consider the total of the personal factors that constitute what an individual is and what

an individual does, through amplified criteria for selection. Making the system equitable to the Navy and the individual is personalized attention.

Such a system considers and weighs all the personal factors embodied in the marks found on Fitness Reports.-"*

Computers would function helpfully in the following areas of evaluation:

1. Setting and weighting of criteria to give a more valid picture

of iniividuil merit.

^3 Joseph F. Foley, "The Adequacy of Officer Fitness Reports," unpublished Master's thesis, (Ohio State University, 1950), p. 54.

^U. S. Department of the Navy, Review of Management of the Depart- ment of the Kavy . (Dillon Board Report,) (Washington, D. C: 15 Dec. 1962), pp. 109-18.

2. Auditing of the evaluative system to insure the integrity of

the system at all levels.

Processing data to free the Selection 3oard for considered,

deliberation in difficult areas.

4. Providing a wider range of information in tent® of present

and long range needs for better planning and control in

pe rscnne 1 development . •*• 5

Criteria

Human limitations prohibit the consideration of varied data at the

time of selection. With the greater capacity ana spet*d potential that the

computer offers, the range of criteria used for selection could be increased

to match closely the functional areas of all officers in all categories.

While the relative iserit of performance in these areas would be represented

numerically (as it now is) the final numerical rating would have more signi-

ficance than is possible under the present system of limited consideration.

The sanipulative speed of computers should enable researchers to

produce a yardstick for measuring executive potential. Within the literature researched by the writer, it appears that the lack of an effective jseasuring device still looms as the greatest problem in selection both in government and industry. This leads one to the conclusion that it is no single factor but a combination of factors that makes a leader. Obviously the correlation of proper combinations of factors is beyond the calculation capabilities of

Application of the first three are present in varying degrees in U. S. Army and U. 3, Air Force use of computers aids in evaluation. Personal interview with Lt. Col. Eugene C. Carap, B, . .; and Major F. L. Lanathan,

. . . ., arch 26, 1964 and March 31, 1964.

humans; hovever, the computer might make the task feasible, dy sifting

through enough data it has at least a chance of discovering this illusive

yardstick

The availability of data for such a study certainly creates no

problem in the Navy. The propensity to create as well as conserve the

paper mountain would permit study of selected records of naval leaders who

have served both in peace and war. To interpret and validate so much data

might be difficult. However, the difficulty should not obscure the need.

If the study of past Fitness Heports is neither productive nor

economically feasible, the feedback principle in cybernation would be. The

eearp-irison and analysis of performance of an of ricer after selection in

relation to criteria applied in selection should indicate valid criteria

and their relative importance. The converse is true also and by ridding the

system of invalid criteria the air would be cleared for saore precise evaluation. This is one approach to allievating the evaluating difficulties brought on by semantic loopholes. Criteria couched in terms which do not translate clearly would emerge as faulty measures of relative merit.

Another possibility for improved evaluation through cybernation is

in establishing a valid weight scale for criteria used. In reference to the

specific needs of the service (manpower, specialty skills, experience, mission, etc.) a weighting factor could be figured at each selection period and applied to all reports under evaluation. Computations would be rapid &ad could be programmed simultaneously with the sorting of officers into various merit groups. Time alone makes manual computations of this type impractical.

Cybernation would make possible: a more varied range of criteria that applies more directly to individual performance; a check on the validity

of criteria used in evaluation; a means of up-dating the Fitness Report to

keep it pertinent and a means of determining relative weights or values for

pertinent criteria used for evaluation. Each of these would be a major

contribution to establishing valid criteria for evaluation.

Auditing to Insure Integrity

The ability of the computer to check on itself and compare aata

otans up unlimited possibilities for an evaluative system to maintain its

integrity. Fart of the process of establishing criteria falls in this

area, as cheeking to be sure that criteria is valid is a type of audit to

maintain the integrity of the system. There is another area of the evalu-

ating system which requires audit if the system is to measure merit with any

degree of success. That area is marking habits of reporting seniors. The

proceeding chapter remarked that varied marking habits are a by-product of

divergent standards, faulty perception and premeditated error. The computer

can identify the marking patterns of reporting seniors and a correcting

factor can be figured into the rating scale. Moreover, through an audit of

this type the service could initiate a return to the standard set out in the

Fitness Report as the point of reference for evaluation. This would work

in three ways. (1) The ©valuator with extra rigid or soft standards does

not usually see that his standards differ from those expressed in the

directive for evaluating. Ar. audit could call attention to the fact that

his marking levels do not "measure up." (2) By cranking in a corrective

factor determined by audit, the computer makes it pointless to distort marks. (3) The computer would make it possible for the service to actively

discourage poor marking through identifying the deviate marker and hitting

him where he lives — his own fitness report — in terms of his integrity

and Judgment. It might only require the possibility of such action for

markers to conw back to a more uniform standard.*"

Just as the computer audits individual markers , it could audit

groups of raarkers in different areas of conmano. For example the opinion

that aviators as a group are higher markers than non-aviators could be

tested. Depending on the findings, narking levels could be adjusted ac-

cordingly.

The computer through audit could help the evaluating system to

operate from a rcore uniform basis of standards.

rocessing Data to Free the Selection

oard for Deliberation

The computer processes data to improve all stages of evaluation.

However, the manipulative skill and accuracy by the computer, particularly

commend its use in the act of selection. The computer can provide the

Selection Board with a detailed and accurate brief she t, previously cor-

rected for ?aarking deviations, and grouped according to any ranking struc-

ture desired, with reference to any special consideration both of the

individual or the service. The computer can set out as a group those obviously

selected and those who obviously don't measure up.*' It can also place the

*®The U. S. Air Force uses computers to audit the marks &iven by report writers. This audit is done at the major command level rather than at the individual level so as to increase the sise of the statistical unit. This action recognises that oi ticers as a whole fall within a normal distribution and at the same time recognises that a small unit med not necessarily

follow such a distribution. From interview with Major F. t, Lanathan, 0. . Karch 31, 19©A.

*?Fltzhu<*h Lee, op. clt .. p. 3.

middle group before the Selection Board when it convenes freeing the board

for its unique contribution — personal deliberation.

Providing a Wide Hange of Information to

Answer the Needs of the Service

The ultimate in programming will be a completely integrated system;

personnel needs will be determined by long range planning derived from the

Davy's missions. Plans will be constantly up-dated and annual plans will

reflect long term needs. Both could employ computers to predict requirements

more accurately, obviating the feast or famine situation which characterise

many present policies. Specifically in officer programming, increased

information processed by computers could s direct procurement to the most

lucrative areas for recruiting; correlate training and assignment to produce

required specialists and utilise them fully; determine at all levels, in

reference to retention and retirement, the necessary input to sustain the

programs throughout. Under the full impact of increased data processing

selection will undergo radical changes. More factors can be considered more

often and in relation to the whole of officer programming. The time may

come that officers would be considered annually for promotion, retention or

elimination. With the Increased capacity to ascertain ability, tiiae in

grade will diminish as a major factor in selection and the very young admiral may be seen again.

Conclusion

Because of the need for constantly improving evaluative technique and the value of the computer as an aid in achieving more effective evaluation, this writer would conclude that a feasibility study of computer application to the ^vy's selection system would be profitable and practical.

APPENDICES

APPEHDIX I

A. Mavy Officer Hank Structure from highest to lowest as set forth in

Title 10, U. S. Code, Article 55C1.

Admiral Vice Admiral Hear Admiral (upper half) Hear Adairal (lower half) Commodore (In time of war or national emergency only.) Captain Lieutenant Commander Lieutenant Lieutenant (Junior grade) nsign.

8. Service in Grade for Navy Line Officers as set forth in Title 10,

0. S. Code, Article 5766. (In years.)

Minimum Time Kormal Tiae Total Commissioned in Grade in Grade service

Captain 3 5 30 Commander 5 7 25 Lt. Commander A 6 18 Lieutenant U 6 12

Lieutenant J. . 2 3 6 c. Permanent Grade Distribution as set forth in title 10, U. 3. Code,

Article 5447.

Rear Admiral 0.75 Percent Captain 6.0 Percent Commander 12.0 Percent Lieutenant Commander 13.0 Percent Lieutenant 24.75 Percent 3-t. (jg) and Ensign Combined 38.50 Percent

APPEND!* II

::t unm forms

Page 1. Navy and Coast Guard 69

2. U. S. Marine Corps 70

3. U. I. Ansy 71

4. U. S. Air Force (Corap&ny Grades) 72

5. U. S. Air Force (Field Grades) 73

6. U.S. Air Force (Augiaentee - for optical scanning) 74

) iIIiI 1

..*& 70

FFICER FITNESS REPORT-U.S. MARINE CORPS AVMC 10147-PD (REV. 6-63) UPERSEDES 2-57 AND 4-61 EDITIONS WHICH Will BE USED)

SECTION A

MBOSSED PLATE IMPRESSION (Name, Grade, Service No., MOS's) EMBOSSED PLATE IMPRESSION (Organization)

I. NAME (Last) (First) (Middle initial) GRADE SERVICE NO. USMC.

2. ORGANIZATION

J. PRIMARY MOS ADDITIONAL MOS's

4. OCCASION FOR THIS REPORT (Check appropriate box)

| DETACHMENT OF OFFICER REPORTED ON i— CHANGE OF REPORTING |— C I I SEMIANNUAL I I (Enter unit or station to which detached, he low ) I I SENIOR REPORT OTHER (Explain below)

S. PERIOD COVERED: FROM (Day, month, year TO (Day, month, teat) MONTHS

i. PERIODS OF NONAVAILABILITY (30 DAYS OR MORE) (Explain)

I DUTY ASSIGNMENTS DURING PERIOD COVERED: A. REGULAR (Dates, descriptive title, and duty MOS)

MARKSMANSHIP QUALIFICATIONS (Lieutenants and Captains)

I. WIFE'S ADDRESS

). AGE, RELATIONSHIP OF DEPENDENTS REQUIRING TRANSPORTATION

1. OFFICERS PREFERENCE FOR NEXT ASSIGNMENT (1st choice)

(2nd choice ) (3d choice)

GNATURE OF OFFICER REPORTED ON DATE

SECTION B (To be completed by repotting senior) NAME AND GRADE OF REPORTING SENIOR 12. DUTY ASSIGNMENT

i. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OFFICER S NEXT DUTY ASSIGNMENT

I. DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT- YES NO If YES in (a), (b ), or (c ), and a report has NOT been submitted to the CMC, attach separate statement of nature and at- (a) Has the work of this officer been reported on in a .— tendant circumstances. If a report has been submitted to the commendatory way? I— CMC, reference such report below:

(b) Has the work of this officer been reported adversely? I—

(r) Was this officer the subject of any disciplinary action i—

that should be included on his record? I—

K A. ENTRIES ON THIS REPORT ARE BASED ON (.Check appropriate box) 15. B. TO BE COMPLETED ON ORGANIZED RESERVE OFFICERS

, | INFREQUENT OBSERVATIONS DAILY CONTACT AND CLOSE OBSERVATION —I FREQUENT OBSERVATIONS I — .OF. SCHEDULED WORK | OF THIS OFFICER'S WORK ATTENDED _ DRILLS OF THIS OFFICER'S WORK I I OF THIS OFFICER'S |

IF embossed plate impression is used, do not complete Items 1, 2, and 3. I' —I y I r 96Z- 169 — JO C96I 3D1JJO ONIlNIHd 1N3WNM3AOO SO

S1VI1INI" 1N3WNOISSV A

sn 3QV!iO" aaaujo oni/a3ia3» do 3v>

/u/j/i/uiuj ,iq ii i I g NOI1

'>!"(]) (uo [jj/im/ji ijjiffu fi) uniouStg) I >/«(/ ( loims Sui/Mxftj /o un/ouSto)

1N3H31V1S V Q3H3VUV 3AVH I

•.) Xiu jo is.k) .>qi o) jBqj Q p^ , AilX'aaD

,iq { piunbji tuq n pjii/r/iiio.i u iq [ ) j NOI133S (joiuji Suiuoq'jj »qt pj/Jpjiuo} iq a / I J NOli:

moo's (yuB/q /fi/ jq iou /mm fiq£) uo upvivq) /vsidk/i/b jjvi/s ui ptiwtfii ifJiffb iqifo )BUOiss»foirf >q\ fo muuoj nq) ptojiy (-i\\i\ puo uad ui iniua Sui/iofci Iq //iii/i/iaoj iq ujJ q NOI1D

r i 'i i i i i i i v r 1 i 1 i i i r i

iuoisbddo Supjodaj siqi joj -jpBjS siq jo sjjdujo papjBMB s3up|JBUj (b) -51 uiajj ||B jo uoijnqiJJSip Moq^; (q) D D D D D D ONIONViSino 1H31133X3 39V83AV 3A08V f 39VH3AV ? 39VH3AV M013S ADOJ.jVJSIJ.VSNn Q3AM3S80 ION :xoq ajBudojddB aqj ui Sui>)jbuj Xq 33iAjas aqj oj anjB^ |bj3U3q„ s j.jz>luo siqj jo ajBtupsa jnoX ajBoipuj (b) •( (t x„ ;(

II I I 03A1I3S8O I I C3AVH Oi 3IIIS30 C3AVH 01 43AVHC3AVH 01 I d3AVH43AVH 01 I II 10M — ( —noX DinO/VA I I mmnjimvd 0V19nviq 38in '— 9NI11IMouiiiiu 38jg 'I—' IONinw iuiimMdi«d '—

puBUJUioa jno.\ japun jaoyjo siqi SuiABq pjBMOj apnjpiB jnoX ajBDipui 'jba\ ui jdiajjs jo siuaiusjmbaj ajqissod sqj SuuspisuoQ •(

(s]BU>)DW pun Uiwiii -wiiii Jn uoi/rCi/i/n i.2i)})Jfy) J.N3 W30VNVW Nl AWONOD3 ( «

q/i ii SU0l]V]ii /niptiii SuiUfDJUtow puv Zuiqsipjv/sj ii>f t//nwj ftf/DUOSSB UVI/I.1IJ pun UVJljllu ) SNOI1V13!) lVNOSil3d (h

puv t/i/unb (sijuij)siunjiii )i» pun (uu jjpun >juvi2»/jb 9ui u*nsun '»}i u>i $ui]]un puo /n/q/ivf timupun fo sqi) A11VAOT fy

iiib/uipui SJJI//D i>.mp •>; (t/BJOiu I/Sll) //us pun uutnjfm puv 'JOJIUOJ ' IjuBtfBi Jq£)

in /i/', ).tq i/m/

w/v hi du.iSi.iii/j pj)i>4\.iim i/i'/mrui/ /ju puv t/i/iqv u fiiuli apun us m fyxtipifft pus yutq/ o/ *qil QNIW dO 3DN3S3!)d I

/iiiii'ii/ ( suoisnpwD IB j hub puv i/j/w/j yuiq/ 0) tl'/iqv iq± ) J.N3WOQflf '?

i ili/iqisuoq'sii utn< niuc/nii/ijii 10 Uvssmu SuiyD) fo iivii iq /) 3AI1VI1INI (f,

( uvi/t.'u puv Uoiijitu 'ta«lo ifjtm tCuouuvq ui Suiyjomjb t//njvf*qj ) NOIlV!l3dOOD (*

( i<]

Sitiauq (juipjos puv i/iuSip Jiuiiq'iin/(/v Huimojuwiu Cfijbnb iq / 1 fo 3DN3S3dd AHVIIIIW | 1

(iu)iv UOI/MU in uuofiun ui pjiuoojS-//J.n puv 'JIVUIS ' iv.at iiuiiv.n/i/v (//vn/iqvq Jo jwi] Jq±) 3DNV))V3ddV TVNOS!l3d f°

jo/' (suoii'puiu SuinSi/Bj upun uo Sui.Imbj x/i/iqv jb)uhu puv /vmiqj } 33NVSWQN3 fl cONiMonoj 3Hi aanaiHxa 3H svh 33»03a ivhm oi l

\i.i>ijl

13NNOSi)3d ONINIVdl (J

13NNOSd3d a31SHN3 ONIIONVH (\

S!)3DlddO ONIIONVH (P

ssiina 3AiivnisiNiwav (j

ssiina ivNOiuaav (q

S3iina civinosd (» o m > > c z (imfuopavq) Aina JO 33NVW»Oda3d 9 c X w < Z o n O m v> en < 5 > > > o wopq s^JBds ^jBudojdd > o Ui CD z z m > -n c/> aqj ui 2ui>iJBui Aq j^oyjo siqi jo ajBUJijsa jnoX jjBDipui 'A(|Buosj3d noX oi umou>] jje saijipqB jbuo: O < < m (< m > TO X„ z TO JO Q < -s^jojd 3Soq.v\ apBjS suibs aqj jo sjaoyjo jaqjo []B qjiM uosijBdujoD ui uo p^jjodaj j^dujo aqj Suu^pisuoj o > > O m 3D iq ui pj/.i/i/uioi oj_) m 2 -< ( joiMi rjui)jwpj >)ui puo uad >q J NOI133 . VI j. J ) READ CAREFULL, REFERENCED SECTION IN AR 623-105 BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO r._L OUT ANY ITEM

PART I - PERSONAL DATA (Head Section IV, AR 623-105) 6. INIT RA APMT

AST NAME- FIRST NAME- MIDDLE INITIAL 2. SERVICE NUMBER 4. DATE OF RANK

NIT. ORGANIZATION, STATION AND MAJOR COMMAND I!

PART II • REPORTING PERIOO AND DUTY DATA (Read Sections IV and V, AR 623-105)

PERIOD COVERED 9. REASON FOR RENDERING REPORT (Chock) 10. REPORT BASED ON (Check) DAILY CONTACT MONTH MONTH YEAR DAY YEAR CHANGE OF RATER FREQUENT OBSERVATION PCS RATED OFFICER INFREQUENT OBSERVATION OTHER DAYS CHANGE OF DUTY FOR RATED OFFICER RECORDS AND REPORTS OTHER (Specily) OTHER (Specity)

DUTY ASSIGNMENT FOR RATED PERIOD

•RINCIPAL DUTY 12. DUTY IS. AUTH MOS_ GRADE

MAJOR ADDITIONAL DUTIES

PART III - MANNER OF PERFORMANCE (Read paragraph 21c, AR 623-105)

I AM FOR REASON: I THE FOLLOWING | UNABLE TO EVALUATE THIS OFFICER

A FORM 67-5 REPLACES DA FORM 67-5. 1 FEB 62, WHICH IS US ARMY OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT OBSOLETE EFFECTIVE 30 SEP 63 (AR 623-105) ' OrS-969 — C96I : 3DIJJ0 SNIlNltid lNaNNH3A09 S'n »

(a)BiJdoJdda 11 ,,0,, I'asu)) S3dHSCH3NI SVH AdOd3d SIHA

S1VIAINI S.dSpiddO 13NNOSd3d Zl 99 HdOd VQ NO 03d3AN3 3AV0 IZ

AN3NN9ISSV AlflQ 3AV0 QNV 'NOIAVZINVOdO 'dSHHflN BOIAddS HONVdS '30VdO '3HVN Q3dAl d3M3IA3d dO 3dOAVN! X3 3HS NOIlVflNIANOO NO 03AVAS NOIIOV Nl SATflSSd NOIADV H3Hianj ON S3AVDI0NI Q Q] M3IA3d AH (S0J-CZ9 UV 'IA UO/loaS paey) U3M3IA3U 1

3HODS 3XISOd»OD

1N3MN0ISSV Aino QNY 'NOIAVZ INV OdO 'U3SNHN 33IAd3S 'HONVdS '30VU0 '3WVN 03dAA 7VJ.OJ.

(Z) IA AdVd

IA AdVd 3i.va d3SdOQNI dOSdflAVNOIS '81 (I) Al AdVd d^SdOONI d3AVd

AN3NN9ISSV AAfia ONV 'NOIAVZINVOdO 'U3BHRN 33IAU3S HONVdS '30VH0 3HVN OSdAl SBdOOS

(Jaoijjo fauuosjad a Aq paijuaA pua jasjopui pua JajBJ Aq pajajua aq 0; sajoos) aiva d3AVd dO SdflAVNOIS il (S0I-CZ9 UV 'UJZ udaiSaiBd paah) (S0I-CZ9 UV 'UZ udBJ»BJBd peoMj NOIlVDIlNSHin V - MIA IdVd imvA nv3i«3wnN - iia xavd 3XOOS illllllHKl!!

I • - * 3Avn030VNI 61 01 1

z * - * IVNIOdVW 6Z 02 II £ 6e - oe MM 3AIA33dd3 * 6fr - Of MIMMMMM s 6S - OS MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM AN3m3DX3 9 69 - 09 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM L 6i - Oi MIMMMMM dOld3dHS 8 68 - 08 MM

- 6 * , S6 06 * M 1VNOIld3DX3 SNIONVASAHO OT * 001-96 • 1 dSSdOONI smvA U31VU d3SdOONI amvA d3AVd

(I) Q31VU SM3DIJJO 001 dO NOIAnsidASIO Q3iD3dX3 ONIAVd nVHN3iOd 031VHI1S3 3DNVHHOJM3d asivuisNoiNsa -nv«3AO

(S0I-£Z9 UV 'VIZ pua HZ aqdajgand paan) 1VllN310d <]3J.VWI±S3 ONV 3DNVwaOdd3d G31V«lSNOW3a T1VU3AO - IA ItSVd

SlNSNOdHOD 3AH3S3H HUM I shoos »

doxonuiSNi -u (fUfodMafA B.uoaiad jaufoua jo uoiiaioaiddv) ONiaNVASdSONn 7

SAN3HNd3AO0 HO (asuaffo AJBBBaoauun Sum i? inoqt/M aie/idoidda si >bum saop jo bAbS) 10* 1 s

S33dOd NOISdOd HUM ? (csujf fBiuam pua /eoiaAqd paioaJioid lepun Ai/n/ssaoons suuoijaj) VNINVAS j

S3I3N30V dO (BaflfAJlOB AflUnuIUJOO puB IBfOOB Uf AftSaa pUB A[BajJ B92BdtOffJBd) AAHIBVOOS b U3H10 / a S33dOd SO HUM (ifOmmpi BAOJdwi OI UOllOB saifBX) AN3W3AOddWI-d~l3S

(apiapuBis paidaooa tiifM aouapjoooa uj jjaBiupj aionpuoO) 3NlldlOSia-d~13S °

(A)foads) dSsaooNi (paftmoo aq pua dn puajB 0; Baau9ufnfM 'Atsauoq ;enj39//9;u/J Bovdnoo nvdOW ' u

(aa)BuipjoqnB pua ejouadna O) iJoddns PufHfM pua injiptaf sj&puay) AA TV AO~l -ui (A) loads) dSAVd (BUOIBfOBp JBOftOBJd SByfSUJ pUB AlfB0f9O[ 9tfMl{£) AN3N300nr 7 XSMVIOSdS 9

(Alipsai Bfdaouoo sdaaiS pua egpsj^iotcf sajiniD^,) 33N3Sn~l3ANI Jf

911/ uo uoftoa ajafJdoJdda pua Asassaoau aaqaj.) 3AIAVIAINI ( (AjfoadS) dSSdOONI Ciauo suo»;n/os spuij) AAIHN30NI 7 • (aaioa)Bqo 10 BaajpjB^aj amajqojd of (AffzedS) d3AVd (Ajanaio9fA suoijdb bb)tio&x3) 3 3dOd 'V JdVIS "lVI33dS -p

( J"""" ( ) AdHOO (&UHUM u; pus A\\bio q/oq Aiaafouoo pua AjJaajo iiaswiy aasaaid*3) NOISS3ddX3 9

( ) ( ) V d (f) ANIOr (laax am Aq sjatijo bbibaiioh) MSVtsnHAN3 7

a { ) ( ) S3IASIOOT dO (uoiBlAjadna umniutui mfM suoijoe paj/sap BBqai\diuo30B AjluaisisuoD) AAI~liavaN3d3a

(jaqmam uiaaj SJaqio Auouubxi ui syjoM) ( ) ( ) SNOIlVd3dO (O) nvdSNSO a BB qifM NOIAVdSdOOD p

AJetifiui sassassod) ( ) ( ) •H3XNI f/lJllNfl (pawooi9'UBM pua 'fjBlus 'taau Bf pus fruueaq 33NVdV3ddV 'O

13NNOSd3d (aaitfiiqiBuodsaj lUBtJodwf atom pua jauofuppa aamoofaM pua syaas) NOIAI8WV ( ) ( ) ddVAS q AINn 1VDIAOVA-NON 0N03 q (ajnsaajd jopun dn BJBaq !BB8sajfB \ suo/jBnjis gu;9uaqo 10 xau 0; sjsnlpv) AAlllSVAdvav a AINfl 1VOIADVA V ONVNHOO B d3SdO0NI d3AVU

ussuoaNi d31V« saixna £• 0" d3BHriN S" V V V aN3031 AdV~ldH3X3 39Vd3AV 3AOSV 30Vd3AV 30Vd3AV M013S IVNIOdVIH 3AVnb3avNI 33d93Q (S01-CZ9 UV '»Xl udajfaJBd paan) qdBJgBJBd paay) SNOiivsidnvno jo ivsivaddv - a itivd (S01-CZ9 UV 'PIZ S3linYnO IVNOSMid Al IHYd d38wnN 3DIAU3S ONV 3HVN Sd3DlddO Q31V 72

IDENTIFICATION DATA (Read AFM 36- K .orefully before filling out any item.

LAST NAME — FIRST NAME — MIDDLE INITIAL 2 AFSN 3 ACTIVE DUTY GRADE 4 PERMANENT GRADE

ORGANIZATION, COMMAND AND LOCATION 6. AERO RATING CODE 7 PERIOD OF REPORT

FROM TO:

8. PERIOD OF SUPERVISION 9 REASON FOR REPORT

DUTIES— PAFSC DAFSC

RATING FACTORS Consider how this officer is performing on his job.) KNOWLEDGE OF DUTIES

SERIOUS GAPS IN HIS KNOWL- SATISFACTORY KNOWLEDGE WELL NOT INFORMED ON MOST EXCELLENT KNOWLEDGE OF EXCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING EDGE OF FUNDAMENTALS OF OF ROUTINE PHASES OF HIS PHASES OF HIS JOB. ALL PHASES OF HIS JOB. OF HIS JOB. EXTREMELY WELL HIS JOB. JOB. INFORMED ON ALL o PHASES. 3BSERVED n PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES

NOT QUALITY OR QUANTITY OF PERFORMANCE MEETS ONLY QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF PRODUCES VERY HIGH QUAN- QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF WORK OFTEN FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM JOB REQUIREMENTS. WORK ARE VERY SATISFACTORY TITY AND QUALITY OF WORK. WORK ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR JOB REQUIREMENTS. MEETS ALL SUS- AND TIMELY. o PENSES. DBSERVED

EFFECTIVENESS IN WORKING WITH OTHERS

INEFFECTIVE IN WITH SOMETIMES HAS DIFFICULTY IN GETS WELL WITH IN NOT WORKING ALONG WORKS HARMONY WITH EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL IN OTHERS DOES NOT CO- GETTING ALONG WITH PEOPLE UNDER NORMAL CIR- OTHERS. A VERY GOOD WORKING WITH OTHERS. OPERATE. OTHERS. CUMSTANCES. TEAM WORKER. ACTIVELY PROMOTES o HARMONY. DBSERVED n LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS

OFTEN WEAK. FAILS TO INITIATIVE ACCEPTANCE SATISFACTORILY DEMON- DEMONSTRATES A HIGH DE- ALWAYS DEMONSTRATES NOT SHOW AND OUT- INITIATIVE AND ACCEPT RE- OF RESPONSIBILITY ADEQUATE STRATES INITIATIVE AND AC- GREE OF INITIATIVE AND STANDING INITIATIVE AND SPONSIBILITY. IN MOST SITUA- CEPTS RESPONSIBILITY. ACCEPTANCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF o TIONS. RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY OBSERVED JUDGEMENT

DECISIONS AND RECOMMEN- JUDGEMENT IS USUALLY SHOWS JUDGEMENT SOUND, LOGICAL THINKER. CONSISTENTLY NOT GOOD ARRIVES AT DATIONS OFTEN WRONG OR SOUND BUT MAKES OCCA- RESULTING FROM SOUND CONSIDERS ALL FACTORS TO RIGHT DECISION EVEN ON INEFFECTIVE. SIONAL ERRORS. EVALUATION OF REACH ACCURATE HIGHLY COMPLEX o FACTORS DECISIONS. MATTERS. DBSERVED n ADAPTABILITY

UNABLE TO PERFORM ADE- PERFORMANCE PERFORMS WELL OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE NOT DECLINES UN- UNDER STRESS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENT QUATELY IN OTHER THAN DER STRESS OR IN OTHER THAN OR IN UNUSUAL SITUATIONS. EVEN UNDER PRESSURE OR IN UNDER EXTREME STRESS. MEETS ROUTINE SITUA- ROUTINE SITUA- DIFFICULT SITUA- THE CHALLENGE OF DIFFICULT o TIONS. TIONS. TIONS. SITUATIONS. DBSERVED

USE OF RESOURCES

INEFFECTIVE IN CONSERVA- USES RESOURCES IN A BARELY CONSERVES BY USING ROU- EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISHES EXCEPTIONALLY EFFECTIVE IN NOT TION OF RESOURCES. SATISFACTORY MANNER. TINE PROCEDURES SAVINGS BY DEVELOPING IM- USING RESOURCES. PROVED PROCEDURES.

PEKSONNEL PERSONNEL MATEIIEI. PE«SONNEl DBSERVED

WRITING ABILITY AND ORAL EXPRESSION

UNABLE TO EXPRESS EXPRESSES THOUGHTS SATIS- USUALLY ORGANIZES AND EX- CONSISTENTLY ABLE EX- OUTSTANDING ABILITY TO NOT TO THOUGHTS CLEARLY. LACKS FACTORILY ON ROUTINE MAT- PRESSES THOUGHTS CLEARLY PRESS IDEAS CLEARLY. COMMUNICATE IDEAS TO =)0 ORGANIZATION. TERS. AND CONCISELY. OTHERS w«ire DBSERVED

'. MILITARY QUALITIES (Consider how this officer meets Air Force standards.

BEARING OR BEHAVIOR INTER- CARELESS BEARING AND BE- BEARING AND BEHAVIOR CRE- ESPECIALLY BEHAVIOR BEARING AND BEHAVIOR ARE NOT GOOD FERE SERIOUSLY WITH HIS HAVIOR DETRACT FROM HIS ATE A GOOD IMPRESSION. AND BEARING. CREATES A OUTSTANDING. HE EXEMPLI- EFFECTIVENESS. EFFECTIVENESS. VERY FAVORABLE FIES TOP MILITARY o IMPRESSION STANDARDS DBSERVED

COMPANY GRADE OFFICER EFFECTIVENESS REPORT 0»0£*9 — O Z96I 33UJ0 ONIlNlad J.N3WN83AOO S u

aiva 3QOD oniiyh o«3y

aanivNois sun xina NOI1YZINYOMO QNY 'NSdY '3aYilO '3W

1VDIJJ0 ONISaOQNI Afl M3IA3U

3iva saoD ONI1Y!) Od3Y

sanivNOis 3iiii Aina NOIlYZINYOaO QNY NSJY '3QYHO '3VV

6uj|8$uno) aiuouijojjad jsa{0| jo sjdq IVDIddO 9Nlia0d3a II

S1N3WW0D I

S3iaY»OdW31NOD JO C3Y3HY 113M 310WO»d 3DNYW!)Odil3d S3iaY»OdW31NOD JO OY3HV 1N3W3DNYACJY !)OJ »30ISNOD Q31Y)ilSNOW3Cj NO 03SY8 1YllN3iOd H1MOSO ONIdNYlSinO > Aini9ISNOdS3M Q3SY3ilDNI !IOJ S3lini9YdYD S31YdlSNOW3a

S3iaYHOdW31NOD HUM ONOIY NOIiOWOHd dOJ 3WI1 Q3!i3aiSNOD 38 OlflOHS 30Y!IO lN3S3!id Nl 113M ONIW»Od»3d I SIH1 1Y NOIlOWOHd HOJ AllllBYdYD Y 31YdlSNOW30 ION S3O0

lVUN310d NOIlOWOHd

3NIJ AdOlDYd ONiaNYisino AnYNOIld3DX3 3NIJ A33A !N313dWOD QNY 3All03dd3 30Y»3AY M0139 1YNIOSYW SIlYSNfl U3 I I HUH I t * III Viti illji iTiti AY TO SHOIDH 3S3H1 103 SHOIDJS 3SJH1 103 ( I * ojiimii noumiiisnr imijms YrnnVnVnVniyiiriijiiiiJMT omnoii noimmism JI3D3JS

(•apoj6 9UJDS am jo siaiiyo u,j,im xiNO JaJtyo siq* ajodiuoj) N0llVf11VA3 llVHAO "J 73

IDENTIFICATION DATA (Read AFM 36-10 carefully before filling out any item.)

LAST NAME— FIRST NAME — MIDDLE INITIAL 2 AFSN 3 ACTIVE D'UTY GRADE 4 PERMANENT GRADE

ORGANIZATION, COMMAND AND LOCATION 6 AERO RATING ;CODE 7 PERIOD Of REPORT FROM: TO

8. PERIOD OF SUPERVISION 9 REASON FOR REPORT

I. DUTIES— PAFSC DAFSC

II. RATING FACTORS (Consider how this officer is performing on his job.

1. JOB CAPABILITY

NOT HAS GAPS IN I HAS A SATIS- HAS EXCELLENT HAS AN EX- HAS A FAR-

FUNDAMENTAL FACTORY KNOWL- KNOWLEDGE AND CEPTIONAL I REACHING GRASP KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS EDGE AND SKILL FOR IS WELL SKILLED ON ALL UNDERSTANDING AND OF HIS ENTIRE BROAD OF HIS JOB. THE ROUTINE PHASES PHASES OF HIS JOB. SKILL ON ALL PHASES JOB AREA. AUTHORITY o HIS JOB. OF HIS JOB. IN HIS FIELD OBSERVED OF

2. PLANNING ABILITY

NOT RELIES ON OTHERS PLANS AHEAD IS A CAREFUL CAPABLE OF PLAN- CAPABLE OF I TO BRING PROB- JUST ENOUGH EFFECTIVE PLAN- NING BEYOND I I TOP LEVEL LEMS TO HIS ATTENTION. TO GET BY IN HIS NER. ANTICIPATES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING; A HIGH OFTEN FAILS TO SEE PRESENT JOB TAKES ACTION TO SOLVE PRESENT JOB, SEES CALIBER THINKER AND o PROBLEMS. THE BIG PICTURE. PLANNER. OBSERVED AHEAD.

3. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

NOT IS- A POOR MAINTAINS GIVES ECONOMY MAINTAINS HIGHLY SKILLED

ORGANIZER. ORDINARY OF OPERATION iEFFECTIVE IN BALANCING DOES NOT REALLY MAKE EFFICIENCY OF OPER- CAREFUL ATTENTION. ECONOMY. CAREFULLY COST AGAINST RESULTS EFFECTIVE USE OF ATION CONTROL COULD MAKES WISE USE OF MAN- WEIGHS COST AGAINST TO OBTAIN OPTIMUM o EFFECTIVENESS. OBSERVED MATERIEL OR MANPOWER BE IMPROVED. POWER AND MATERIEL EXPECTED RESULTS.

4. LEADERSHIP

NOT OFTEN WEAK IN NORMALLY DEVEL- CONSISTENTLY A EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP COMMAND SITUA- OPS FAIRLY ADE- GOOD LEADER. SKILL IN QUALITIES TIONS. AT TIMES UN- QUATE CONTROL AND COMMANDS RESPECT OF DIRECTING OTHERS TO REFLECT POTENTIAL o ABLE TO EXERT CONTROL. TEAMWORK. HIS SUBORDINATES. GREAT EFFORT. FOR HIGHEST LEVEL. OBSERVED

5. EXECUTIVE JUDGMENT

NOT DECISIONS AND HIS JUDGMENT DISPLAYS GOOD AN EXCEPTION- HAS A KNACK RECOMMENDA- IS USUALLY !JUDGMENT, ALLY SOUND, n:FOR ARRIVING TIONS ARE SOMETIMES SOUND AND REASON- RESULTING FROM SOUND LOGICAL THINKER IN AT THE RIGHT DECISION, UNSOUND OR INEFFEC- ABLE, WITH OCCASIONAL EVALUATION. HE IS SITUATIONS WHICH EVEN ON HIGHLY COM- o TIVE. EFFECTIVE. OCCUR ON HIS JOB. PLEX MATTERS. OBSERVED ERRORS.

6. HUMAN RELATIONS

NOT DOES NOT GET HE HAS DIFFI- I I GETS ALONG WITH HIS ABOVE OUTSTAND- ALONG WELL WITH CULTY IN GET- I I PEOPLE ADEQUATELY AVERAGE ING SKILLS PEOPLE; DEFINITELY TING ALONG WITH HIS HAS AVERAGE SKILL SKILLS IN HUMAN IN HUMAN RELA- HINDERS HIS EFFEC- ASSOCIATES. AT MAINTAINING GOOD RELATIONS ARE TIONS. INCREASES o TIVENESS. HUMAN RELATIONS AN ASSET. HIS EFFECTIVENESS. OBSERVED

7. WRITING ABILITY AND ORAL EXPRESSION

NOT UNABLE TO EXPRESS EXPRESSES THOUGHTS USUALLY ORGANIZES AND CONSISTENTLY ABLE TO OUTSTANDING ABILITY THOUGHTS CLEARLY. SATISFACTORILY ON EXPRESSES THOUGHTS EXPRESS IDEAS TO COMMUNICATE LACKS ORGANIZATION. ROUTINE MATTERS. CLEARLY AND CONCISELY. CLEARLY. IDEAS TO OTHERS.

OBSERVED

8. JOB ACCOMPLISHMENT

NOT QUALITY OR PERFORMANCE IS QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE IS QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF HIS BARELY ADEQUATE QUANTITY OF ABOVE NORMAL QUANTITY OF WORK DOES NOT ALWAYS TO MEET JOB REQUIRE- HIS WORK ARE VERY EXPECTATIONS FOR MEET- HIS WORK ARE CLEARLY o MEET JOB REQUIREMENTS. MENTS. SATISFACTORY. ING JOB REQUIREMENTS. SUPERIOR. OBSERVED f. MILITARY QUALITIES (Consider how this officer meets Air Force standards.

NOT BEARING OR | CARELESS BEAR- BEARING AND ESPECIALLY GOOD BEARING AND 1 BEHAVIOR INTER- * ING AND BEHAV- BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR AND IBEHAVIOR ARE FERE SERIOUSLY WITH HIS IOR DETRACT FROM HIS CREATE A GOOD BEARING. CREATES A OUTSTANDING. HE EFFECTIVENESS. EFFECTIVENESS. IMPRESSION. VERY FAVORABLE EXEMPLIFIES TOP o IMPRESSION. OBSERVED MILITARY STANDARDS.

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE FIELD GRADE OFFICER EFFECTIVENESS REPORT 06E9f>9 - 2961 : DNIiNIHd 71 r O 3DMJO lN3WN«3AOD S

3QOD ONiiva oaav

danivNOis ami Aina NOiivziNvoao qnv 'nsjv iqvho '3W

IVIDUdO QNISaOQNI AS M3IA3H

31V0 3QOD ONI1V8 OB3V

aanivNois 3iiii Aina NOIlVZINVOdO QNV 'NS3V '3QVaO '3W\

Buipsuno) ajuDUMOjjad jsaiD| jo ajDQ ivi3iddo ONiiaodaa in

S1N3WW03 .,.I

S3iaV80dW31NOD dO 0V3HV 113M SlOWOMd 3DNVWaOda3d S3li)VHOdW31NOD dO 0V3HV 1N3W33NVAOV HOd !J3aiS asivaiSNOwsa no assvg iviiNsiOd HiMoao ONiaNvisino v -nod AinisiSNOdsaa qssvshdni aod AiniavdVD s3ivaiSNOW3a '(

S3ldVaOdW31NOD HUM ONOIV NOIlOWOdd MOd 3WI1 Q3!i3aiSNOD 39 QlflOHS 3aV80 lN3S3Jld Nl 113M ONIWaOdHSd Z sihi iv NOiiowoad aod AiniavdVD v sivhisnowsq ion ssoa

lVIJ.N3J.Od NOIlOWOdd I,

asivnos cmvnos 1SOW 3A09V aoiwdns H3A3N 1SOW1V woaiss 113M SS3N 30VM3AV MOI 30V AHOOVd A13iniOS8V 'ONIQNVlSinO '1N3113DX3 -3All33dd3 !N313dWOD QNV 3AU03dd3 -39 A11HOI1S -H3AV M0139 IVNIOaVW -SI1VSND

II in mi UIAJ* II (SUOI))3S 95SLH JO} ^ (suoj4>as 35944 JO} ~"\ pajinbaj uoitoii^iisnj Jijijadj J pajinbaj uoiionjitsnj jiji jad$ ) IMIIIJi

(apoj6 auios ai|4 40 sjaiijo \\\m >y|NO jajjjtfQ Sji|4 ajpduioj) NOIiVmVAj TIV-M3AO / ! UR FORCE OFFICER PERFORMANCE REPORT IH

ID CO Ol 1 Z >- u Q S Z X LU < i/i II z uj L> loooi ] o 1 _ >- z o a | s n n CM LU >- l/> u Of LU _l Z n n < CO a. Hi LL. O — ro lO CO Ol < < u u 5< =LL. o- a < * CL. a »- •c U3 r» co en Vi LT) n a < a X a. or cO rr. Li Li '

< CO 0. o: N O — CM •T IjO CO o> u u u U t j > o n n n i < CO Q * a. £ D > > © — (NJ <^ T U3 r- CO Ot >, ? F U LJ U 01 n n n 3 < CO CL a. in o — <^ U3 00 o U I u Li U Li u h-" n n n n z OC < CO u I 0- O o: o — eg m ifi CO Ol u u u u o : t u u u u it 2 n n n Z £ < i n n n n n n UJ < 0J 0. O or g X >- O — AJ to CO Cl u u u u u u M 4 u u Z n n n " n n n n n = < CO u O Ul u. O O Q_ in 3 > § 3 UJ O — l- u u u u u u z : a < n n n n n n n n i n n n n n h h fi n < z h < CO Q uj u. 0. a. in D > S x >- N O — IN! LI CO Ol L-' at u u u u u u u iJ U LJ ' u u • y y u n n u. < CO a. O a. in D > < - u U I 5 u u 1 ci o < < <

LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE INITIAL NAME OF OFFICER

BEING CONSIDEREC : GRADE

II. PERSONAL QUALITIES COMPARE OFFICER ONLY WITH OTHERS OF THE SAME GRADE AND EXPERIENCE

1. LEARNING ABILITY THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE OFFICER GRASPS INSTRUCTIONS, ABSTRACT IDEAS OR CONCEPTS LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% REPORTING OFFICIAL: .NDORSING OFFICIAL: .

2. ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY THE degree to which the officer accepts responsibility for his own ACTIONS, THOSE OF HIS SUBORDINATES AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES ASSIGNED TO HIM. LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% REPORTING OFFICIAL: INDORSING OFFICIAL: 1

3. WRITING ABILITY AND ORAL EXPRESSION THE ABILITY OF THE OFFICER TO COMMUNICATE HIS IDEAS IN: 1. WRITING (W) AND 2. SPEECH IS) LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% IW)

n n n n n n n n n IS) REPORTING OFFICIAL: s s S S S S S s s s (SI INDORSING OFFICIAL: s u u u U U Li u u u u

4. BEARING AND BEHAVIOR THE EXTENT TO WHICH HE MEETS STANDARDS OF BEARING, DRESS AND COURTESY, AND ENHANCES THE IMAGE OF THE AIR FORCE OFFICER. LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% REPORTING OFFICIAL: INDORSING OFFICIAL:

5. ACCOMPLISHMENT THE DEGREE TO WHICH HE DISPLAYS FLEXIBILITY AND INGENUITY IN ACCOMPLISHING HIS DUTIES. LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% REPORTING OFFICIAL: INDORSING OFFICIAL:

Ill AIR FORCE CAREER RECOMMENDATION

tEPORTING OFFICIAL: NOT MAY RECOMMEND HIGHLY OUTSTANDING RECOMMENDED RECOMMEND FOR AIR FORCE RECOMMENDED POTENTIAL FOR AIR FORCE IN THE FUTURE CAREER FOR AIR FORCE FOR AIR FORCE

1 NDORSING OFFICIAL: CAREER CAREER CAREER

IV REPORTING OFFICIAL V. INDORSING OFFICIAL NAME-GRADE-ORGANIZATION AND COMMAND NAME- GRADE-ORGANIZATION AND COMMAND

DUTY TITLE DATE DUTY TITLE DATE

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

F°™ DnCBnTTEK Optical Sr^n nino Syitams AF , 709

APPENDIX III

SUMMARY RECORD - U. S. COAST GUARD

(Same Fitness Report utilized

by U. S. Navy.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT • OFFICER SUMMARY RECORD PART 1 U. S. COAST GUARD CGHQ-4JSS (7-63) (Fitness Report) P««»l ( )

1. NAMt (Laii, tint, middla> t. HRVICt NUMIU 1. DESIGNATOR 4. BOARD CODE NUMII S. VOTES S. VERIFIED 7. INITIALS I (Rscordsrs (Ptssldmt el AFFIRMATI v« NEGATIVE Initials) th» BomnD

• 10 ii 12 IS 14 IS 17 IS . 10 [NO OF REPORTINS AVERAtE OF DUTItl DESIRABILITY COMPARISON AVERASE OF QUALITIEI REVKIIN8 OFFICER'S TOTAL OF PRIMARY REPORT NO. OFFICER AND EVALUATION SHIP 01 STATION ITtNS 14, CHARIS HUE DUTY PEAIOO NOS. SHADE 13.18, 17 .4 DATE 9 8 7 e 5 4 3 2 1 1 5 3 1 a 7 5 3 1 1 7 8 3 4 3 2 1 1 9 1 7 8 5 4 3 2 1 IV. Sf II,

•

21. SIGNATURE OF FIRST REVIEWER 22. SIGNATURE OF SECONO REVIEWER

I. IDENTIFICATION DATA (Reod AFM 36-10 carefully before filling out any item.)

I. LAST NAME — FIRST NAME — MIDDLE INITIAL 2 AFSN 3 ACTIVE DUTY GRADE 4. PERMANENT GRADE

5. ORGANIZATION, COMMAND AND LOCATION 6 AERO RATING CODE 7 PERIOD OF REPORT FROM TO

8 PERIOD OF SUPERVISION 9 REASON FOR REPORT

II. DUTIES— PAFSC DAFSC

III. RATING FACTORS (Consider how this officer is performing on his job.

1. JOB CAPABILITY

NOT HAS GAPS IN HAS A SATIS- HAS EXCELLENT IHAS AN EX- HAS A FAR- FUNDAMENTAL FACTORY KNOWL- KNOWLEDGE AND ICEPTIONAL REACHING GRASP KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS EDGE AND SKILL FOR IS WELL SKILLED ON ALL UNDERSTANDING AND OF HIS ENTIRE BROAD OF HIS JOB. THE ROUTINE PHASES PHASES OF HIS JOB. SKILL ON ALL PHASES JOB AREA AUTHORITY o HIS JOB. OF HIS JOB. IN HIS FIELD OBSERVED OF

2. PLANNING ABILITY

NOT RELIES ON OTHERS PLANS IS A CAREFUL ~| CAPABLE OF AHEAD CAPABLE OF PLAN- | TO BRING PROB JUST ENOUGH EFFECTIVE PLAN- I INING BEYOND I I TOP LEVEL LEMS TO HIS ATTENTION. TO GET BY IN HIS NER. ANTICIPATES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING; A HIGH OFTEN FAILS TO SEE PRESENT JOB. TAKES ACTION TO SOLVE PRESENT JOB; SEES CALIBER THINKER AND o THE BIG PLANNER. OBSERVED AHEAD. PROBLEMS PICTURE.

3. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

NOT ISA POOR MAINTAINS GIVES ECONOMY MAINTAINS HIGHLY SKILLED ORGANIZER. :ORDINARY OF OPERATION EFFECTIVEi IN BALANCING DOES NOT REALLY MAKE EFFICIENCY OF OPER- CAREFUL ATTENTION. ECONOMY. CAREFULLY COST AGAINST RESULTS EFFECTIVE USE OF ATION. CONTROL COULD MAKES WISE USE OF MAN- WEIGHS COST AGAINST TO OBTAIN OPTIMUM o MATERIEL BE EXPECTED EFFECTIVENESS. OBSERVED OR MANPOWER IMPROVED. POWER AND MATERIEL. RESULTS.

4. LEADERSHIP

NOT "I OFTEN WEAK IN NORMALLY DEVEL- CONSISTENTLY A EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP

I 1 COMMAND SITUA- OPS FAIRLY ADE- GOOD LEADER. SKILL IN QUALITIES TIONS. AT TIMES UN- QUATE CONTROL AND COMMANDS RESPECT OF DIRECTING OTHERS TO REFLECT POTENTIAL o ABLE TO EXERT CONTROL. TEAMWORK. HIS SUBORDINATES. GREAT EFFORT. FOR HIGHEST LEVEL. OBSERVED

5. EXECUTIVE JUDGMENT

NOT DECISIONS AND HIS JUDGMENT DISPLAYS GOOD AN EXCEPTION- HAS A KNACK RECOMMENDA- IS USUALLY JUDGMENT, ALLY SOUND, IFOR ARRIVING TIONS ARE SOMETIMES SOUND AND REASON- RESULTING FROM SOUND LOGICAL THINKER IN AT THE RIGHT DECISION, UNSOUND OR INEFFEC- ABLE, WITH OCCASIONAL EVALUATION. HE IS SITUATIONS WHICH EVEN ON HIGHLY COM- o TIVE ERRORS. EFFECTIVE OCCUR ON HIS JOB PLEX MATTERS. OBSERVED

6. HUMAN RELATIONS

NOT DOES NOT GET HE HAS DIFFI- GETS ALONG WITH I 1 HIS ABOVE OUTSTAND-

ALONG WELL WITH CULTY IN GET- PEOPLE ADEQUATELY I I AVERAGE ING SKILLS PEOPLE; DEFINITELY TING ALONG WITH HIS HAS AVERAGE SKILL SKILLS IN HUMAN IN HUMAN RELA- HINDERS HIS EFFEC- ASSOCIATES. AT MAINTAINING GOOD RELATIONS ARE TIONS. INCREASES o TIVENESS. HUMAN RELATIONS. AN ASSET. HIS EFFECTIVENESS. OBSERVED

7. WRITING ABILITY AND ORAL EXPRESSION

8. JOB ACCOMPLISHMENT ~| NOT QUALITY OR -1 PERFORMANCE IS QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE IS QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF HIS I I BARELY ADEQUATE QUANTITY OF ABOVE NORMAL I l

IV. MILITARY QUALITIES (Consider how this officer meets Air Force standards ESPECIALLY BEARING NOT BEARING OR | CARELESS BEAR- BEARING AND ] GOOD | AND I I BEHAVIOR INTER- I I ING AND BEHAV- BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR AND I I BEHAVIOR ARE FERE SERIOUSLY WITH HIS IOR DETRACT FROM HIS CREATE A GOOD BEARING. CREATES A OUTSTANDING. HE EFFECTIVENESS. EFFECTIVENESS. IMPRESSION. VERY FAVORABLE EXEMPLIFIES TOP o IMPRESSION. MILITARY OBSERVED STANDARDS

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE. FIELD GRADE OFFICER EFFECTIVENESS REPORT - : 0668*9 O 2961 3DIAAO ONIXNIHd IN3IMNM3AOD 'S 'fl

31VQ 3QOD ONiiva oaav

aim Aino NOUVZINVOMO QNV 'NSdV '3QVaO '3W\

IVIDIddO ONISUOdNI A.8 M3IA3H 5

31VO 30OD ONIlVd 0»3V

3anivNois sun Aina NOIIVZINVOOO QNV NS3V '30VHO 3WV

6u||9SUnOJ 3)UDUlJ0JJ3d |S31D| JO 9\0Q lvoidio ONiiaodaa in

S1N3WWOD 11/ saiavaodwaiNOD do ovshv n3M siowoad SDNVwaodasd S3iavaodW3iNCQ do avaHV in3W30nvaov aod asais a3ivaiSNow3a no assva iviiN3iod himojio ONiaNvisino > -nod AiniaiSNOdSsa assvsaoNi aod Aimavdvo saivaiSNOwaa l

S3iavaOdW31NOD hum onow Nouowoad aod 3WI1 asasaiSNOO 3a cnnoHS 3avao iN3S3«d ni ii3M ONiwaodasd z HJ sihi iv Nouowoad sod AimavdVD v sivaiSNOwaa ion S3oa

!VllN310d NOIlOWOtfd l>

cmvno3 asivnos 1SOW 3A08V aoi»3dns H3A3N 1SOW1V WOCH3S 113M SS3N 30VS3AV AAOl 30V AaOlDVJ A131fllOS8V 'ONiaNvisino '1N3TI3DX3 3AllD3dd3 !N313dWOD QNV 3AllD3dd3 -38 A11HOI1S -H3AV M0138 lVNioavw -SIlVSNfl en II m HUH in i* ^\ ViVi (suoi4>9s asaifi jo) m VnViVAViVrm pajinboj uoi4o>iji(snj jijoadg J M VMMV psjmbaj uO!4»3iji«sn{ njijsds )

apojB auios 9i| t jo sj3>iij,o mm AINO jaj !M° S !H* ajodmoj) NOIlVmVA3 nv-M3AO / 1

I IDENTIFICATION DATA (Read AFM 36-10 carefully before filling out any item.

I. LAST NAME — FIRST NAME — MIDDLE INITIAL 2 AFSN 3 ACTIVE D'UTY GRADE 4 PERMANENT GRADE

Hi. ORGANIZATION, COMMAND AND LOCATION 6 AERO RATING CODE 7 PERIOD OF REPORT FROM: TO:

8. PERIOD OF SUPERVISION 9 REASON FOR REPORT

II. DUTIES— PAFSC DAFSC

II. RATING FACTORS (Consider how this officer is performing on his job.

1. JOB CAPABILITY

NOT HAS GAPS IN HAS A SATIS- HAS EXCELLENT |HAS AN EX- HAS A FAR- FUNDAMENTAL FACTORY KNOWL- KNOWLEDGE AND ICEPTIONAL REACHING GRASP KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS EDGE AND SKILL FOR IS WELL SKILLED ON ALL UNDERSTANDING AND OF HIS ENTIRE BROAD OF HIS JOB THE ROUTINE PHASES PHASES OF HIS JOB. SKILL ON ALL PHASES JOB AREA AUTHORITY o HIS JOB. OF HIS JOB. IN HIS FIELD OBSERVED OF

2. PLANNING ABILITY

NOT RELIES ON OTHERS PLANS AHEAD IS A CAREFUL CAPABLE OF PLAN- CAPABLE OF TO BRING PROB- JUST ENOUGH EFFECTIVE PLAN- NING BEYOND TOP LEVEL LEMS TO HIS ATTENTION. TO GET BY IN HIS NER. ANTICIPATES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING; A HIGH OFTEN FAILS TO SEE PRESENT JOB TAKES ACTION TO SOLVE PRESENT JOB; SEES CALIBER THINKER AND o PROBLEMS. THE BIG PICTURE. PLANNER. OBSERVED AHEAD

3. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

NOT IS A POOR | MAINTAINS GIVES ECONOMY MAINTAINS HIGHLY SKILLED ORGANIZER. I I ORDINARY OF OPERATION EFFECTIVE IN BALANCING DOES NOT REALLY MAKE EFFICIENCY OF OPER- CAREFUL ATTENTION. ECONOMY. CAREFULLY COST AGAINST RESULTS EFFECTIVE USE OF ATION CONTROL COULD MAKES WISE USE OF MAN- WEIGHS COST AGAINST TO OBTAIN OPTIMUM o MATERIEL OR BE IMPROVED. EXPECTED EFFECTIVENESS. OBSERVED MANPOWER POWER AND MATERIEL. RESULTS. J 4. LEADERSHIP

NOT ""I OFTEN WEAK IN NORMALLY DEVEL- CONSISTENTLY A EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP I I I COMMAND SITUA- OPS FAIRLY ADE- GOOD LEADER. SKILL IN I (QUALITIES TIONS. AT TIMES UN- QUATE CONTROL AND COMMANDS RESPECT OF DIRECTING OTHERS TO REFLECT POTENTIAL o ABLE TO EXERT CONTROL. TEAMWORK. HIS SUBORDINATES. GREAT EFFORT. FOR HIGHEST LEVEL. OBSERVED

5. EXECUTIVE JUDGMENT NOT DECISIONS AND |HIS JUDGMENT \ DISPLAYS GOOD Ian exception- ~l HAS A KNACK

RECOMMENDA- I IIS USUALLY I P JUDGMENT, i i ally sound, I IFOR ARRIVING TIONS ARE SOMETIMES SOUND AND REASON- RESULTING FROM SOUND logical thinker in AT THE RIGHT DECISION, UNSOUND OR INEFFEC- ABLE, WITH OCCASIONAL EVALUATION. HE IS situations which EVEN ON HIGHLY COM- o TIVE. EFFECTIVE. occur on his job. PLEX MATTERS. OBSERVED ERRORS.

6. HUMAN RELATIONS

NOT DOES NOT GET HE HAS DIFFI- GETS ALONG WITH HIS ABOVE OUTSTAND- ALONG WELL WITH CULTY IN GET- PEOPLE ADEQUATELY AVERAGE ING SKILLS PEOPLE; DEFINITELY TING ALONG WITH HIS HAS AVERAGE SKILL SKILLS IN HUMAN IN HUMAN RELA- HINDERS HIS EFFEC- ASSOCIATES. AT MAINTAINING GOOD RELATIONS ARE TIONS. INCREASES o TIVENESS. HUMAN RELATIONS. AN ASSET. HIS EFFECTIVENESS. OBSERVED

7. WRITING ABILITY AND ORAL EXPRESSION

8. JOB ACCOMPLISHMENT

NOT QUALITY OR I PERFORMANCE IS QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE IS QUALITY AND

QUANTITY OF HIS I BARELY ADEQUATE QUANTITY OF ABOVE NORMAL QUANTITY OF WORK DOES NOT ALWAYS TO MEET JOB REQUIRE- HIS WORK ARE VERY EXPECTATIONS FOR MEET- HIS WORK ARE CLEARLY o MEET JOB REQUIREMENTS. MENTS. SATISFACTORY. ING JOB REQUIREMENTS SUPERIOR. OBSERVED

V. MILITARY QUALITIES (Consider how this officer meets Air Force standards.) NOT BEARING OR CARELESS BEAR- BEARING AND ESPECIALLY GOOD BEARING AND J BEHAVIOR INTER- ING AND BEHAV BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR AND I I BEHAVIOR ARE FERE SERIOUSLY WITH HIS IOR DETRACT FROM HIS CREATE A GOOD BEARING. CREATES A OUTSTANDING. HE EFFECTIVENESS. EFFECTIVENESS. IMPRESSION VERY FAVORABLE EXEMPLIFIES TOP o IMPRESSION. OBSERVED MILITARY STANDARDS

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE. FIELD GRADE OFFICER EFFECTIVENESS REPORT - 06E9l>9 O 2961 : 33IJ30 ONIXNIHd XM3IAIMU3AO0 'S'n (

30OD ONiiva oasv

danivNois ami Aino NOIlVZINVOdO QNV N9dV savao 3VW

IVIDIJdO ONISaOQNI AS M3IA3M >

31V0 3QOD ONI1V8 OH3V

38fUVNOfS NOIlVZINVOaO QNV NSdV '3<]V!(0 '3WVI

6ui|3SUnO} 3)UDUiJ0jJ8d |S3)D| JO 310Q 1VI3IJJO 9NliaOd3M III,

S1N3WWOD ny S3iavaOdW31NOD dO 0V3HV 113M 3iOWOad 3DNVWi)Odd3d S3iavaodW3iNOD do av3HV in3W3dnvacjv aod asms adivdiSNOwga no assva iviiNsiod himoho ONiaNvisino r -nod •AimaiSNOdSsa assvsaDNi aod AimavdVD S3ivaiSNOW3a £

S3iavaOdW31NOD HUM ONOIV NOIlOWOad HOd 3WI1 a3a3aiSNOD 38 ainoHS savao iN3S3ad ni n3M ONiwaodasd z sihi iv Nouowoad aod AiniavdVD v 3ivaisNow3a ion ssoa

1VllN3J,Od NOIlOWOdd 1/

a3ivn03 a3ivno3 1SOW 3AOSV aoiasdns H3A3N 1SOW1V woaiss 113M SS3N 30VH3AV MOT 30V AHOlDVd Aisimosav 'ONiaNvisino '1N3113DX3 3AllD3dd3 !N313dWOD QNV 3AllD3dd3 •38 AliHOnS H3AV M0138 "IVNIOHVW SIlVSNn

1 apoj6 auios ai|( jo sjaxjjo i\\m k\hq m\yo 5Ujj ajpduioj) NOIlVniVA3 nv-M3AO 7 1

OVER-ALL EVALUATION (Compare this officer ONLY with officers of the same grade.

SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION IEWIIED SPECIFIC JUSTIFIUTKM IE0UIIED FOI THESE SECTIMS FOI THESE SECTIOHS t t t I 1 f (ft H t t hum tttttttttttttttttfftt O I t UNSATIS- MARGINAL BELOW AVERAGE EFFECTIVE AND COMPETENT VERY FINE EXCEPTIONAL! Y OUTSTANDING FACTORY FINE

PROMOTION POTENTIAL

. DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A CAPABILITY FOR PROMOTION AT THIS 2. PERFORMING WELL IN PRESENT GRADE. SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TIME. FOR PROMOTION ALONG WITH CONTEMPORARIES

I. DEMONSTRATES CAPABILITIES FOR INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY. 4. OUTSTANDING GROWTH POTENTIAL BASED ON DEMONSTRATED CONSIDER FOR ADVANCEMENT AHEAD OF CONTEMPORARIES. PERFORMANCE. PROMOTE WELL AHEAD OF CONTEMPORARIES

II. COMMENTS

III. REPORTING OFFICIAL Date of latest performance counseling

;AME, GRADE, AFSN, AND ORGANIZATION DUTY TITLE SIGNATURE

AERO RATING CODE DATE

X. REVIEW BY INDORSING OFFICIAL

AME, GRADE, AFSN, AND ORGANIZATION DUTY TITLE SIGNATURE

AERO RATING CODE DATE 1

OMrr US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1962 O — 647040 iaOd3)i SS3N3AI1HU3 H3IJJO 3QV»9 XNVdWOD iiiiosio n> mot sihi jo SNOiiiai snoiAjm mm CZ saavaNYis NOISS38dWI CZI AdYllllW dOl S3IJ 319YdOAYJ Ad3A SS3N3AI103JJ3 SS3N3AIJ03JJ3 -ndw3X3 3H ONiaNvisino V S31Y3dD ONIdY39 ONV NOiss3Hdwi aooo V 31V SIH WOdJ JOYdl3d dOIAYH SIH HUM A1SflOld3S 1H3J O 38V dOIAVH39 ONY ONIdY39 aoiAVH3a aooo xnyQ3dS3 3dD dOIAVH39 QNY ONIdY39 39 QNV ONI8Y39 SS313dY3 831NI dOIAYH39 dO ONIdY39 ION

spjDpuojs 3}joj J(v sjaaui j9)iyo Sjqi Moq wpjsuoj) SillllVnO AUVllllW '/

JIV3JS HUM HVldS S1HM 1*11% Q]A« Sd3H10 ai3sdnod ony SH31 NOIlYZINYOdO ©(•: Ol SY30I 31YDINflWWOD A1dY31D SY30I SS311d A1dY31D SIHOnOHl S3SS3dd 1YW 3Nllf)Od NO AlldOlDYJ SXDY1 AldY3i:> SlHOflOHl 01 Ainiay ONiaNvisino X3 Ol 319V A11N31SISNOD X3 ONY S3ZINYOHO AHVOSfl SI1YS SIHOnOHl S3SS3ddX3 SS3ddX3 Ol 319YND ION NOissaadxa "ivao qnv nmav oniiimm

ajADBsao 13NNOUU 13U31VW l]NNOM34

S3df)a3DOdd 03AOdd S3DdfK)S38 ONISfl Wl ONId013A3

aiAHJsao SNOiivnus SNOI1 CZI SNOI1 CZI SNOI1 nfoujia jo 3on3iiyh:> 3hi vnns nrojjia -vnns 3Nunod •Ynus 3Niinod S133W SS3dlS 3W3dlX3 d3aNf1 Nl dO 3dOSS3dd d3C]Nfl N3A3 snoiiyoiis lvnsnNn ni do NYH1 d3H10 Nl dO SS3diS d30 NYH1 d3H10 Nl A131VflO O 3DNYWdOJd3d ONIQNYlSlflO 1N31133X3 3DNYWdOJd3d SS3diS dJQNn 113M SWdOJd3d NO S3NI1D3a 3DNYWdOJd3d -3QV WdOJd3d Ol 319YNfl ION Aimavidvav

03ahs80 CZI Sd311YW CZI SNOISD30 CZI SdOlDYJ X31dWOD A1HOIH 31YdfODY HDY3d jo NOiiyniYA3 SdOdd3 1YNOIS 3AIJ03JJ3NI NO N3A3 NOISD30 IHOId Ol SdOlDYJ 11Y Sd3aiSNOD aNnos wodj ONinnssd YDDO S3XYW lfl9 ONflOS dO ONOdM N31JO SNOI1Y0 O ION IV S3AlddY A11N31SISNOD d3XNIHl 1YDIOO! 'ONflOS iN3W3oanr aooo smohs AiiYnsn si iN3W3oanr N3WWOD3d QNY SNOISD3Q iNdwaoanr

03AHS80 CZ All1l9ISNOdS3d CZ Aini9ISNOdS3d CZ CZ SNOI1 CZ JO 3DNYld3DDY JO 3DNYld3DDY Allll9ISNOdS3d Sld3D -YD1IS 1SOW Nl AinigiSNOdS ONY 3AI1YI1INI ONI0NY1S ONY 3AI1YI1INI JO 33dO OY ONY 3AI1YI1INI S31YdlS 31YHO30Y Aini9ISNOdS3d JO •3d id3DDY ONY 3AI1YI1INI o inO S31YdlSNOW3Q SAYM1Y 3Q HOIH Y S31YdlSNOW30 NOW3Q AlldOlDYJSIlYS 3DNYld3DDY ONY 3AI1YI1INI MOHS Ol S1IYJ XY3M N3JJO ION

SDiisiaaiDvjiVHD diHsaaavgn -

03Aa3S80 CZ ANOWdYH CZ CZ CZ S3!OWOdd A13AIJOY d3XdOM WY31 S3DNYlSWf1D Sd3H10 31Yd3dO S83H10 HUM ONIXdOM aOOO Ad3A Y Sd3H10 dO lYWdON dSONfl 31d03d HUM ONOIY 0NI1130 OD ION S3O0 SdSHIO O Nl indSS3DDnS A13W3dlX3 HUM ANOWdYH Nl SXdOM HUM 113M ONOIY S130 Nl AllflDUJia SYH S3WI13WOS HUM ONIXdOM Nl 3AI133JJ3NI ION

Sa3HiO HUM ONDWOM Nl SS3N3AIJ03dd3 '

03A83S8O CZ CZ S3SN3d CZ CZ CZ A13WI1 ONY SOS 11Y S133W SlN3W3din03S 90f dOld3dnS A1dY31D 3dY XdOM xdOM jo Ainvno ony aiii A8O10YJSI1YS Ad3A 3dY XdOM SlN3W3din03d 9or wnwiNiw 133W Ol S1IYJ N31JO XSOM o JO AlllNYflO ONY AlHYnO NYnO HOIH AS3A SSDOOOdd JO AinYDO ONY AlliNYnO A1NO S133W 3DNYWdOJd3d JO AlllNYflO dO AlllYOO ION

ssiina do 3DNvwaOda3d

03A)l3SaO CZ S3SYHd CZ CZ CZ CZ 11Y NO 03WdOJNI 9or 90f SIH 113M A13W3dlX3 SIH 90f SIH JO S3SYHd 11Y 90r SIH JO SIH S3SYHd 3Nllf10d JO SlYlN3WY0Nnj JO 3O03 o 90f JO S3SYHd JO JO ONiaNYlSd3QNn 1YNOIld3DX3 JO 3O031MON)l 1N3113DX3 1SOW NO a3WdOJNI 113M 3O031MONX AdOlDYJSIlYS -1MONX SIH Nl SdYO SflOldSS ION S3lina dO 30Q31MONX

qol s;i| uo 6uiiujop3d si J3>ijjo siqi Moq japisuc^) SHODVd 9NI1VU

• Dsjva osdvd-saiina ii

ldOd3d dOJ NOSY3d 6 NOISIAd3dOS JO QOIdJd 8 Ol WOdJ

IdOdSd JO QOId3d L 3QOD ONIlYd Od3Y 9 NOIlYDOl QNY QNYWWOD NOIlYZINYOdO

3QYdO !N3NYWd3d > 3QYdO AlflQ 3AI13Y C NSJY I 1YI1INI 310aiW— 3WYN ISdIJ— 3WYN 1SY1

(uiai! Aud ino 6ui||ij ajo^aq A||n^JD^>i-9£ P9 b WdV P a) VIVO NOI1V3IJI1N30I I IATEO OFFICERS NAME AND SERVICE NUMBER

PART IV - PERSONAL QUALITIES (Read paragraph 21d, AR 623-105) PART V - APPRAISAL OF QUALIFICATIONS (Read paragraph 623-105) DEGREE INADEQUATE MARGINAL BELOW AVERAGE AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE EXEMPLARY 21e, AR LEGEND NUMBER .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 DUTIES RATER INDORSER

RATER INDORSER a. COMMAND A TACTICAL UNIT a. adaptability (Adjusta to new or changing situations & atresaea; bears up under pressure) b. COMD NON-TACTICAL UNIT c STAFF b. AMBITION (Seeks and welcomes additional and more important responsibilities) PERSONNEL ( ) ( )

c. appearance (Possesses military bearing and ia neat, smart, and well-groomed) UNIT (V) INTEL. ( ) ( )

d- COOPERATION (Works in harmony with others aa a team member) GENERAL (G) OPERATIONS ( ) ( )

e. DEPENDABILITY (Consistently accomplishes desired actions with minimum supervision) OR LOGISTICS ( ) ( ) (Motivates t. ENTHUSIASM others by hia zeal) JOINT R&D (J) ( ) ( )

g. EXPRESSION (Expresses himself clearly and concisely both orally and in writing) COMPT ( ) ( ) «* SPECIAL STAFF h. FORCE (Executes actions vigorously) RATER (Specify)

i. INGENUITY (Finds solutions to problems regardleaa of obataclea) INDORSER (Specify) i- INITIATIVE (Takea necesaary and appropriate action on hie own)

k. INTELLIGENCE (Acquirea knowledge and graape concepts readily) B - 1- JUDGEMENT (Thinke logically and makes practical decisions) SPECIALIST RATER (Specify) ">• LOYALTY ("Renders faithful and willing support to auperiora and subordinates)

n. moral COURAGE (Intellectual honesty, willingness to stand up and be counted) INDORSER (Specify)

o SELF-DISCIPLINE (Conducts himself in accordance with accepted atandarda)

p. SELF-IMPROVEMENT (Takes action to improve himself) ( WITH OTHER US FORCES

a. SOCIABILITY (Participatea freely and eaaity in aocial and community activities) OR AGENCIES

r (Performs successfully under protracted physical and mental stress) STAMINA g- WITH FOREIGN FORCES

s. TACT (Says or does what ia appropriate without giving unnecessary offense) OR GOVERNMENTS

t- UNDERSTANDING (Appreciation of another person' s viewpoint) h. INSTRUCTOR

1 SCORE • WITH RESERVE COMPONENTS

PART VI - OVERALL DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE AND ESTIMATED POTENTIAL (Read paragraphs 211 and 21g. AR 623105) OVERALL DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED POTENTIAL RATING EXPECTED DISTRIBUTION OF 100 OFFICERS RATED (I) (2) RATER VALUE INDORSER RATER VALUE INDORSER

OUTSTANDING * 96 - 1 00 * 10

* • . EXCEPTIONAL ' It 90-95 9 80 - 89 8 SUPERIOR M NtHHttim 70 - 79 7 60 - 69 6 EXCELLENT tttWtMfflttMMtiMfflt mmmmtMMMHMM 50 - 59 5 40-49 4 EFFECTIVE MMiMM - tttt 30 39 3 MARGINAL M * 20 - 29 * 2 * 10 - 19 • INADEQUATE t 1 SCORE W^MMv.

PART VII - NUMERICAL VALUE PART VIII - AUTHENTICATION (Read paragraph 211, AR 623-105) ('lead paragraph 21h, AR 623-105) 17. SIGNATURE OF RATER DATE (Scores to be entered by rater and indorser, and verified by a personnel olticer)

SCORES TYPED NAME, GRADE. BRANCH, SERVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND DUTY ASSIGNMENT

RATER INDORSER

PART IV

IB. SIGNATURE OF INDORSER DATE PART VI (1)

PART VI (2) TOTAL TYPED NAME, GRADE, BRANCH, SERVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND DUTY ASSIGNMENT

COMPOSITE SCORE

i. REVIEWER (Read Section VI, AR 623-105) MY REVIEW [^] INDICATES NO FURTHER ACTION ^ RESULTS IN ACTION STATED OM CONTINUATION SHEET GNATURE OF REVIEWER TYPED NAME, GRADE. BRANCH, SFRVICE NUMBER, ORGANIZATION, AND DATE DUTY ASSIGNMENT

21. DATE ENTERED ON OA FORM 66 22. PERSONNEL OFFICER'S INITIALS

THIS REPORT HAS INCLIdsures. (lnaert "0" it appropriate)

* U.S. PRINTING OFFICE : — «»«-540 OlETtJ OMMP GOVERNMENT IMS 1

(S0I-CZ9 XV) E9 d3S 06 3AU.D3.dda 313T0S80 SI H3IHM laodaa ADNBDidda aaDUdo Awav sn 29 B3J I 9-£9 WaOd VQ S33VTd3U S-Z.9 waoVVC

:NOSV3d 5KI«onOJ 3HX UOJ aSDIJJO SIHi. 3lymyA3 I 01 STBVNn N* | | dasaoQNi -9

M31VU 'I

(S0I-CC9 XV 'oil i/d«?w»d psea.) 3DNVWaOd».3d dO HSNNVH - III llfVd

sauna -ivnoiiiaav uorvn -i

30VHD - son

Hinv 1 Aina z\ Aina nvdONidd i QOId3d 031VU HOJ J.N3WN0ISSV A10O

(A)l3ads) d3Hi.O (Affoadg) U3HXO SldOdSd QNV S0U0D3M U3DI idO 031YB dOd Aina dO 30NVH3 SAVO H3H1Q MOIlVAd3SBO AN3n03ddNI d33lddO 031Vd SJd NOI1VAU3S80 XN3n03dd d31Vd do 30NVHD dV3A HINori dV3A HlHOri 1DV1N03 Aniva nvnNNv

CjfoBvOj no aasve iwodaa 01 ftp»va> luodsa oni«3dn3m «Od Nosvau s Q3(j3AOD ooiaad

(S01-CZ9 XV 'A pu* Al euon3»s pray) VIVO AldO QNV CJOIMSd 9NllM0d3 8 - II lMVd

QNVHHOO dOrvN QNV NOIJ.V1S 'NOI 1VZ IN VSdO 'UNO '

ON S3A -IIVJ.30 OISVB XNVd do 31VQ » 3QVdO t dSSHON 33IAd3S 1 1 VI UNI 3-IQQIM -3HVN ISdld -3HVN ASV1

IWd* 9 uo/ioas - VW XINI (S0I-CZ9 XV 'AI P"X) VIVO ~IVN0SU3d I l«Vd

H31I ANV ino T"-i 01 9NlidW311V 3«0d39 S0l-£Z9 aV Nl N0I103S (]30N3H3d3>Lmnd3HvO 0V3a f. OVER-ALL EVALUATION (Compare this officer ONLY with officers of the same grade) IHIHII Specific ustificationion required Specific justification req uired \ [ j ^ V^ for these sectiections J mMxmxxm•MwwW»t C for these sections t t. ft! : tttttt ttTtftYfttYmtft rtTfii t»t ft LZD LZZ CZI CZI LZD UNSATIS- MARGINAL BELOW AVER- SLIGHTLY BE- EFFECTIVE AND COMPETENT EFFECTIVE- EXCELLENT, OUTSTANDING, ABSOLUTELY FACTORY AGE LOW AVERAGE NESS WELL SELDOM ALMOST NEVER SUPERIOR ABOVE MOST EQUALED EQUALED

'I. PROMOTION POTENTIAL

. DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A CAPABILITY FOR PROMOTION AT THIS PERFORMING WELL IN PRESENT GRADE. SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TIME. FOR PROMOTION ALONG WITH CONTEMPORARIES.

}. DEMONSTRATES CAPABILITY FOR INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY. CON- 4. OUTSTANDING GROWTH POTENTIAL BASED ON DEMONSTRATED SIDER FOR ADVANCEMENT AHEAD OF CONTEMPORARIES. PERFORMANCE. PROMOTE WELL AHEAD OF CONTEMPORARIES.

'II. COMMENTS

III. REPORTING OFFICIAL Date of latest performance counseling

IAME, GRADE, AFSN, AND ORGANIZATION SIGNATURE

AERO RATING CODE DATE

K. REVIEW BY INDORSING OFFICIAL

) -1

AME, GRADE, AFSN, AND ORGANIZATION DUTY TITLE SIGNATURE

AERO RATING jCODE DATE

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1962 O - 646390 OlfTl. I1 I IMOdJM SS3N3AllD3Jd3 M3DI3JO 30VUO Q11IJ 3i3ios90 sav waod sihi jo snoiiiqs snoiA3ad ZOZ

saavaNvis Aaviniw NOISS3adWI 03A«3S8O dOl S3ldHdW3X3 319VTJOAVJ Aa3A NOISS3adWI SS3N3AllD3dd3 SS3N3AllD3dd3 3H ONIONVlSinO V S31V3a3 ONWV38 aOOO V 31V3!0 sih woad ovaisa aoi SIH HUM AlSnOUOS 3«33 aOIAVH38 3dV aOIAVH38 onv aoiAVHsa i 1 AVH39 ONV ONI S31NI aOIAVH38 o aNV ONI8V38! QOOO AllVD3dS3 QNV ONISV38: aV38 SS313MVD: 80 ONIdV39in ION siqj (spjopuDis ajjoj jjv sjaeui jaiiyo moij japisuoj) saillivno Aaviniw 'i 03Aa3S90 aoia3dns siN3W3aino3a flor oni AaOJDVdSIIVS S1N3W SlN3W3ain03a 80r 133W AiavjiD 3av xaoM—sih 133W aOd SNOIlV103dX3 Aa3A 3»V XHOM SIH -sainosa aor i33w 01 savmiv ion ssoa xao/A jo AiiiNvno I - lVWaON 3A09V JO AiiiNvno 31V0O30V A13HV8 SIH JO AiiiNvno o onv Ainvno SI 3DNVWaOda3d onv Ainvno SI 30NVWaOda3d ao Ainvno I | ; : ION lN3WHSHdWODDV 80f 8 a3A*J3S9C 31IHM *V3dS

SiliHlO Ol SV30I A1SV31D A13SDNOD ONV A1JJV31D SM31IVW 3Niinoa NOIlVZINVOaO SXDVT 31VDINnWWOD Ol SV3ai SS3MdX3 SIHOnOHl S3SS3adX3 no Aiiaoiovjsuvs A18V31D SIHOnOHl ©G A1I1I8V ONIONVlSinO Ol 318V A11N31SISNOD onv s3ziNvoao Aitvnsn SIHOnOHl S3SS3adX3 SS3J)dX3 Ol 319VNn ION

NOISS3adX3 "IVHO QNV A1I"II9V ONIlldM L

SS3N3AI103JJ3 SIH 13SSV NV SNOI1V138 NVWnH SS3N3AI1 a3AS3S90 S3SV3JONI SNOIl 3»V SNOIlV13a aooo ONINIV1NIVW IV S31VDOSSV D3JJ3 SIH SM30NIH

"V13S NVWnH Nl NVWnH N l STIDtS TIIXS 30VM3AV SVH SIH HUM ONOIV ONI1 A131INIJ30 31d03d snixs oni 30VS3AV I 1 A13!VnO30V 31d03d 130 Nl AlinD HUM 113M ONOIV o -aNvisino 3A09V SIH IdJia SVH 3H ION | | HUM ONOIV S130 ! 130 S3O0. ION SNOIiV13a NVWOH 9 03Aa3S9O SS3UVW X31d aor sih no anDoo 3All33dd3 saoaa3 3AI1 WOD A1HOIH NO N3A3 HDIHM SNOIlVnilS SI 3H NOIlVmVA3 1VNOISVDDO HUM '318V 03JJ3NI ao aNnosNn 'NOisoaa inoia 3hi iv Nl a3XNIHl "IVDIOOI aNnos woad ONinnsaa -NOSV3H onv aNnos S3WI13WOS 3MV SNOIl ONiAiaav aoj 'aNnos Anvi 1 'iN3woanr< 1 Amvnsn si I 1 -VON3WWOD3a O" NV| sih XDVNX V SVH NOIld30X3 I aooo SAVidSial iN3woanr ONV SNOISD30 ION iNSwoanr 3AiinD3X3 s 03Aa3S8O 13A31 1S3HOIH aOd 180JJ3 1V3MO S3ivNiaaoans sih XSOMWV31 loaiNOD ia3X3 oi snav 1VllN3iOd 103133a Ol SJ13H10 ONI13>3aia JO 133dS3a SONVWWOD onv noaiNOD 3ivno -Nn S3WI1 IV SNOIl ssiinvno Nl TIIXS !)3av3i aooo -3av Aiaivj SdOi 1 •vnns onvwwod o dlHS»3aV31 1VNOIld30X3 V A11N31SISNOD: 13A30 AIIVWaONl Nl XV3M N31JO:cn ION diHSasavsi v

SS3N3AI1D3JJ3 snnssa 03iD3dx3 13ia31VW ONV a3MOd a3Aoadwi 3a asMOdNvw ao i3ia3ivw a3.Aa3sao wnwildO NIV180 Ol ISNIVOV ISOD SHOI3M NVW JO 3Sn 3SIM S3XVW ainoD noaiNOD noiiv JO 3Sn 3AI1D3JJ3 snns3a Alinj3aVD AWONOD3 NOI1N3UV indsavD a3dO dO ADN3DI3J3 3XVW A11V3a ION S3O0 isnivo v-^isod 1 ONDNV1V8 Nll — 3AI1D3JJ3 I NouvasdO do AavNiaaoi 1 asziNvoao o asmxs aihoih| SNIV1NIVW AWONOD3 S3AIO SNIV1NIVW aood v si | : ION 1N3W39VNVW 3AlinD3X3 G

a3NNV1d 3aniDld OI8 3H1 swsiaoad 0V3HV asAassao onv asxNiHi asanvo S33S 'aor iN3S3aa 3A10S Ol NOI1DV S3XV1 aor iN3S3ad 33S Ol S1IVJ N31JO HOIH V 'ONINNVld 3hi jo siN3W3aino3a ONV S31VdOllNV a3N SIH Nl A3 130 Ol NOI1N311V SIH Ol SW31 13A31 dOl ONOA38 ONIN -NVld 3AI1D3JJ3 HonoN3 isnr -aoad ONiaa oi o JO 318VdV3 NVld JO 318VdVD: injsavD v si 0V3HV SNVld; Sa3H10NOS3l13a;n ION AlHiaV ONINNVld z a3Aa3sao 013IJ SIH Nl aor sih jo aor sih jo AiiaOHinv vsav aor sssvHd nv no nixs aor sih jo sssvHd S3SVHd 3NlinOa 3H1 aor sih jo avoaa 3aiiN3 sih jo onv ONiaNvisasaNn nv no asnixs n3M si aoj nixs onv 3003 SniXS ONV 3O031MONX dsvao ONiHOvsa 1VNOIld3Dr^— ONV 3O031MON)! -1MONX Aaoiovj r !VlN3WV0Nnj o 1N3113DX3 SVH Nl SVH avj v svh X3 NV SVH^ I SI1VS V SVH L SdVO inn ION

AinmvdvD aor i

•qoj siuj uo Bujuuopad si JgJjtfQ s;m Moq japjsuoj) SMQ13VJ 9NI1VM 'II

• osjvq DSJVd—S3iina

iaod3aaoj Nosvaa 6 NoisiAasdns do aoia3d 8

: oi woad laodsa jo aoia3d l 3ocoi ONiiva oa3v 9 NOIIVDOI QNV QNVWWOD 'NOIlVZINVOdO '!

3avao iN3Nvwa3d v 3QVSO Ain.Q 3AUDV c NSJV I iviiini 3iaaiw— swvn isau— 3wvn isvt I mat! * up no 6u ai0 JPi Q[-9g Da VIVO NOI1V3IJI1N3QI t !lltf ^ *||"P WJV P M) PM I. IDENTIFICATION DATA (Read AFM 36- u .arefully before filling out any item.

LAST NAME — FIRST NAME — MIDDLE INITIAL 2 AFSN 3 ACTIVE DUTY GRADE 4. PERMANENT GRADE

LOCATION . ORGANIZATION, COMMAND AND 6 AERO RATING CODE 7. PERIOD OF REPORT

FROM: TO:

8 PERIOD OF SUPERVISION 9. REASON FOR REPORT

DUTIES-PAFSC . DAFSC

II. RATING FACTORS Consider how this officer is performing on his job.) KNOWLEDGE OF DUTIES

SERIOUS GAPS IN HIS KNOWL- SATISFACTORY WELL NOT KNOWLEDGE INFORMED ON MOST EXCELLENT KNOWLEDGE OF EXCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING EDGE OF FUNDAMENTALS OF OF ROUTINE PHASES OF HIS PHASES OF HIS JOB. ALL PHASES OF HIS JOB OF HIS JOB. EXTREMELY WEIL HIS JOB JOB INFORMED ON ALL o PHASES. OBSERVED

PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES

INEFFECTIVE IN WITH SOMETIMES HAS DIFFICULTY IN GETS WELL WITH WORKS IN WITH EXTREMELY IN NOT WORKING ALONG HARMONY SUCCESSFUL OTHERS. DOES NOT CO- GETTING ALONG WITH PEOPLE UNDER NORMAL CIR- OTHERS. A VERY GOOD WORKING WITH OTHERS. OPERATE. OTHERS. CUMSTANCES. TEAM WORKER. ACTIVELY PROMOTES o HARMONY. OBSERVED

LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS

OFTEN WEAK. FAILS TO INITIATIVE ACCEPTANCE SATISFACTORILY DEMON- DEMONSTRATES A HIGH DE- ALWAYS DEMONSTRATES OUT- NOT SHOW AND INITIATIVE AND ACCEPT RE- OF RESPONSIBILITY ADEQUATE STRATES INITIATIVE AND AC- GREE OF INITIATIVE AND STANDING INITIATIVE AND SPONSIBILITY. IN MOST SITUA- CEPTS RESPONSIBILITY. ACCEPTANCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF o TIONS RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY OBSERVED

. JUDGEMENT

DECISIONS AND RECOMMEN- JUDGEMENT IS USUALLY SHOWS GOOD JUDGEMENT SOUND, LOGICAL THINKER. CONSISTENTLY ARRIVES AT NOT DATIONS OFTEN WRONG OR SOUND BUT MAKES OCCA- RESULTING FROM SOUND CONSIDERS ALL FACTORS TO RIGHT DECISION EVEN ON INEFFECTIVE. SIONAL ERRORS EVALUATION OF REACH ACCURATE HIGHLY COMPLEX FACTORS DECISIONS. MATTERS o i 1 OBSERVED

ADAPTABILITY

UNABLE TO ADE- PERFORMS WELL PERFORMANCE OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE NOT PERFORM PERFORMANCE DECLINES UN- UNDER STRESS EXCELLENT QUATELY IN OTHER THAN DER STRESS OR IN OTHER THAN OR IN UNUSUAL SITUATIONS. EVEN UNDER PRESSURE OR IN UNDER EXTREME STRESS MEETS ROUTINE SITUA- ROUTINE SITUA- DIFFICULT SITUA- THE CHALLENGE OF DIFFICULT o TIONS. TIONS. TIONS. SITUATIONS. OBSERVED

'. USE OF RESOURCES

INEFFECTIVE IN CONSERVA- USES RESOURCES IN A BARELY CONSERVES BY USING ROU- EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISHES EXCEPTIONALLY EFFECTIVE IN NOT TION OF RESOURCES. SATISFACTORY MANNER. TINE PROCEDURES. SAVINGS BY DEVELOPING IM- USING RESOURCES. PROVED PROCEDURES. ©© fCISONNEl PEHSONNEL MATEKIEl PEHSONNEl OBSERVED

WRITING ABILITY AND ORAL EXPRESSION

UNABLE TO EXPRESS EXPRESSES THOUGHTS SATIS- USUALLY ORGANIZES AND EX- CONSISTENTLY ABLE TO EX- OUTSTANDING ABILITY TO NOT THOUGHTS CLEARLY. LACKS FACTORILY ON ROUTINE MAT- PRESSES THOUGHTS CLEARLY PRESS IDEAS CLEARLY COMMUNICATE IDEAS TO ORGANIZATION TERS. AND CONCISELY. OTHERS

V. MILITARY QUALITIES (Consider how this officer meets Air Force standards

BEARING OR BEHAVIOR INTER- CARELESS BEARING AND BE- BEARING AND BEHAVIOR CRE- ESPECIALLY GOOD BEHAVIOR BEARING AND BEHAVIOR ARE NOT FERE SERIOUSLY WITH HIS HAVIOR DETRACT FROM HIS ATE A GOOD IMPRESSION. AND BEARING. CREATES A OUTSTANDING. HE EXEMPLI- EFFECTIVENESS. EFFECTIVENESS. VERY FAVORABLE FIES TOP MILITARY o IMPRESSION STANDARDS OBSERVED

MEVIOUS EDITIONS OP THIS FOKM A«E OBSOLETE 77 COMPANY GRADE OFFICER EFFECTIVENESS REPORT OMUM — O 2961 : 3DIJJO SNIlNIdd 1N3WNU3AOO S'H ) Q1

31VQ 3Q03 ONiiva o«v

garuvNOis ami xina NOIIVZINVOIIO ONY 'NSJY '30YJ1O '3WY

IVDIJdO 9NISH0QNI A9 M3IAU K

3QOD ONIlYa1 Od3V

3anivNOis 3UU xina NOIlVZINVOaO QNY 'NSJY '3aYHO '3WYI

6u;|9suno> aiuoujjojjad |sa|D| jo ajDQ lVDIddO 9NlidOd3a III,

S1N3WW0D MA

S3l!JVaOdW31NOD JO QY3HY VI3M 3!OWOSd 30NVWHOJa3d S3HJVaOdW31NOD JO OY3HY 1N3W3DNVAOV HOJ dSCIISNOD a31Y»lSNOW3a NO Q3SY9 1YI1N310

S3WViJOdW31NOD HUM ONOIY NOIlOWOdd dOJ 3WI1 Q3!i30ISNOD 39 aiDOHS 3QV»0 lN3S3Hd Nl 113M ONIWMOJ!J3d I SIH1 IV NOIlOWOild ilOJ AlHISYdYD Y 31Y!JlSNOW3a ION S3O0 I

lVUN310d NOIlOWOild IA

3NIJ AMOiDVJ ONIONYlSinO A"nVNOIld33X3 3NIJ A83A !N313dWOD QNY 3AI1D3JJ3 30VU3AV MOH39 IVNIOiJWY -SIlYSNfl t » » Hill 11,11,11,111.11.1111 II II II i j fiTiTi TiVi ii ill! III SN0IJJ3S 3S3H1 103 1 1 I SMIIJ3S 3S3H1 103 131111031 K0IHQUI1SW 1I3I>3« "VlTIITIIITITlVl amnOH noiiDMiisnt jniibjs

(apDj6 auios aijj jo sjaiijo qtjM xiNO J8) !H° S W aJDdwoj) N0llVfllVA3 TIVH3A0 A —I )

FFICER FITNESS REPORT-U.S. MARINE CORPS AVMC 10147-PD (REV. 6-63) UPERSEDES 2-57 AND 4-61 EDITIONS WHICH WILL BE USED)

SECTION A

WBOSSED PLATE IMPRESSION (Name, Grade, Service Mo., MOS's) EMBOSSED PLATE IMPRESSION (Organization)

1. NAME (Last) (First) (Middle initial) GRADE SERVICE NO. USMC-

2. ORGANIZATION

!. PRIMARY MOS ADDITIONAL MOS's

I. OCCASION FOR THIS REPORT (Check appropriate box)

I | OETACHMENT OF OFFICER REPORTED ON — C C I I I 1 I In — SENIOR (Explain SEMIANNUAL I (Enter unit or station which detached, below) REPORT OTHER below)

i. PERIOD COVERED: FROM (Day, month, year) TO (Day, month, fear) MONTHS

i. PERIODS OF NONAVAILABILITY (30 DAYS OR MORE) (Explain)

'. DUTY ASSIGNMENTS DURING PERIOD COVERED: A. REGULAR (Dates, descriptive title, and duty MOS)

B. ADDITIONAL (Descriptive title and number of months) MARKSMANSHIP QUALIFICATIONS (Lieutenants and Captains

I. WIFE'S ADDRESS

>. AGE, RELATIONSHIP OF DEPENDENTS REQUIRING TRANSPORTATION

I. OFFICER'S PREFERENCE FOR NEXT ASSIGNMENT (1st choice)

(2nd choice) (3d choice)

5NATURE OF OFFICER REPORTED ON DATE

SECTION B (To be completed by repotting senior)

1 . NAME AND GRADE OF REPORTING SENIOR 2. DUTY ASSIGNMENT

I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OFFICER'S NEXT DUTY ASSIGNMENT

I. DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT- YES NO If YES in (a), ( b ), or (c), and a report has NOT been submitted to the CMC, attach separate statement of nature and at- (a) Has the work of this officer been reported on in a , tendant circumstances. If a report has been submitted to the commendatory way? I— CMC, reference such report below:

(b) Has the work of this officer been reported adversely? I I

(c) Was this officer the subject of any disciplinary action that should be included on his record?

. A. ENTRIES ON THIS REPORT ARE BASED ON (Check appropriate box) 15. B. TO BE COMPLETED ON ORGANIZED RESERVE OFFICERS

DAILY CONTACT AND CLOSE OBSERVATION —I FREQUENT OBSERVATIONS ,—, INFREQUENT OBSERVATIONS I

OF THIS OFFICER'S WORK i I OF THIS OFFICER'S WORK | I OF THIS OFFICER'S WORK ATTENDED. .OF. SCHEDULED DRILLS

< If embossed plate impression is used, do not complete Items I, 2, and 3. 1 — J0 -

1 162-164 — JO C96 33IJJO ONIlNIdd 1N3WNU3AOD S«

S1VI1INI inswnoissv Ainc

sn aavao asoiddo ONiM3iA3a do swvn

( UJifjo i'ui,u3i.!3i Cq pjij/o'iuo} jq oj) Q NOI1D3S

J (3jvq) (uo pj/jotfjj jt.iffo un/vuSi$) 1 fo /"(J) 1 lOlUlS XuilJoq'jJ fo fjnfVuSlg)

1N3N31V1S V (13H3V11V 3A¥H 1 1—

Xii|BiUBd jo aoipnfojd jnoijiiM puB aruj jjb uoaaaq apsui sjuiua 3XVW 01 INTOIVIS ON 3AVH . JJodaj duloo s , u) U33S 3ABU []B jaipq puB 9^p3|A\ou>( Xui jo jsaq aqj oj ieq) Q p^ j AiIX>IHO I

(puinbii iijqn p3/3pjuto.i oj jq ) i NOI133S (joiius Suiiiocfjj dqi iq pj/upjiuo) iq oj) 3 NOI131S

uo p>iioci»x uiiffo ii/ifo ujommi) pjuonsjfoitf »qi fo /oswjifqfv wpwa v 3jo(fs siqi ui pxawy - f->,ui puo uad u; ioium Sui/ioipi Xq p3/3j(/iuoj iq ojj a NOI1D3S 1 1 11 11 II II 11 II II II 1 | — I 1 :uoise03O Suu-iodsj siqj joj apBjS siq jo sjaoyjo papjBA\B sSupjjeui (b) tuajj ||B jo uonnqu)sip Moqg 51 (q ;

9NI0NVlSinO 1N31133X3 | 39V83AV 3A08V 39VU3AV 39V83AV M0138 AHOiJVJSIlVSNn 03AH3SBO ION :xoq aiBudojddc aqi u; Su;>|jeuj Xq .^oiAjag oj 3n|By\ |BJ3U3Q„ s^jjoluo siqj jo aiBiuijsa jnoX aiBOipuj (b) ic X>> 3qj 51

1 1 63AVH OJ. 3DIS30 1 1 d3AVH 01 1 ilhVH 01 1 1 03A1I3S8O ION 1 1 j — 43AVH 01 — —noX pinOMrl ' m ' ' '— ' \ Al«mn3ll8»d ' 0V19 38 —' 9NI11IM 38 —' ION a333«d —'

puBuiuioo jnoX japun jsdujo siqi SuiABq pjBMOj apniniB jnoX ajBDipui 'jbm ui 301AJ3S jo sjujiuajtnbaj 3|qissod aqj SuujpisuoQ gj

• \]mu)mu puo uuoiu -tmitfo uoijoitji/n >ii<>/fj > 1N3W30VNVW Nl AWONOD3 i>"j

(s3ionosso udi/i.iu puv ijoiijiui yii.n /oipjoj Suiuio/uiuui puo 10/' ti/iuu,/ SUOIJOJU tuilfSljqv)S3 ) SNOI1V13M 1VNOSU3d (l)

(sijuu/siunjju //v pin) Xuo upun >jubiSi)]b 3ui.ui.nsun pun •ai.uis %ui//i,n puv jnfqpof Suu3puii fo l/t/onb iq 1) AIIVAOI (y)

snq/o ijinnj/ui , 3\vioiu i/Sty uwjuwm i/i/s puo pun pu/uo> '/J3jip o/ t/iivifoi iq±) dlHSd30V31 ( C)

fX'/np jo fl/Su '3]quuosva iq o/ pan/iq si qjiq.n /oqj uoipijosn puo CSi»u> qihii ino tiuiluui fo .lj/njvfiU£) 33dOd (')

uivijs to 1 nutii.mu paijao'xjun uo 111 i/*ui.ij//j puo ijiq'iuoxq' jjo puo y/i/y; 01 t]i/iqo u | fl>M§ apun jqj ) aNIW dO 3DN3S3dd ( )

( suoisnj 1110 /uiity'o/ ijjojj) * iv j.uuo puo yuiqf 0/ liijiqv *!/£) iN3WO00f (%)

liiiiqiuwils.ii u, no uo uoi/iv ?/ouq'oi4q'v 10 ( (ims»}»u Suiyvifo iivi) Jqj) 3AI1VI1INI ( f}\

(uviji.iu puo ao/i/iw 'snifjo qii.n Xuoiuwq ui Suii/JO,nfo .('t/ruvf ?q£) NOIlVS3dOOD >')

iivxi ( fysnoiimusuoj puv i/qSnojoqi Sutpoinfo 3qj !t0isnpuj) AlflO Ol NOI1N311V (p)

(Suianq l/uip/os puv ijtuSip ijinufoitju'v it'uiuiv/uivia fo Xiijvnb 3qx) 33N3S3dd ASVllllW (})

' (iJi//o uoi/i.uj jo iiiwfntn ui pjiuoojS-//j,t! puo )joius ')V3u Suuojtfc/D (j/on/iqi/q fo 1101) )qj) 33NVSV3ddV 1VNOSb3d (9)

(suoiiipuo.) ZuinSiivf tipun uo Sm.lMBJ iof l/i/iqu /o/unu puo /tmsXi/j ) 33NVNnON3 ( ") dONIMOnOd 3H1 a3H8IHX3 3H SVH 33MO30 1VHAA Ol IK

jpmJi j/vijc/oi,/,/v /lu-j t sijvffo 0/ ) SdOOill dO ONIIONVH 1VDI1DV1 t$)

13NNOSa3d ONINIVM1 if)

>) 13NNOS!i3d Q31SI1N3 ONHdNVH 1

S!l3DlddO ONIIONVH (P)

ssiina 3AiivaisiNiwav (->t\

ssiina ivNouiaav 1 q)

«) S3iina svino3!i 1 X > > 9m c z (imfuo pnvq) Aina JO 3DNVWi)OdJi3d '91 c n < z -H O m -i m < TO 5 > > m > Mopq saDBds aiBudojddl > O Ui w Z Z m > -n en 9qj ui SupjjBtu Xq j33Lyo siqj jo ajBtunss jnoX ajBDipui 'X|[Buosj3d noX oj umoui| sjb s3i)i|iqB |buojs < < > t ,X,. m (-1 TO z TO < -sajojd asoqM apBjS auiBS 3qj jo sj3Dujo jaqjo []B qjiM uosuBduioo ui uo pajjodaj J33iyo a\\\ Suu^pisuoQ > > O O TO p3)3]q'iuoi ,iq m < ( lonjds SuiiJoq'jj iq >|Uj puD uad ui oj ) j NOI133S i MR FORCE OFFICER PERFORMANCE REPORT O u u z >• u D D D O I z t- Ui a 5 X v N <£ £ O Z o > z o Z CO S = J a y £ N 8 s -a cC oo

UJ N >- o <£> oo cr> s a. < CO X * D > N 6 Q o < 1 a uj ». z uj J O »— CD O L>J 1 > N o - r^ ao a- r * z u u z T n uj _i Zi in n 2 CO a: m i x > u. 3 ID CO C- u_ < < r> n <£ u.= ac a [-1 n n < O UJ u. O —i q: u) g X >; i- o •« il> 00 a> \j u u n n n a. < CO U U U I U U Li U n n a : CO en < cc O 0- O q: {/) D > rU r-> » u u u u 'J u 0) n n n oo 3 CD O LU X _j tr 5 X > o UD r*. a> u u D D fl < _ n n n n n < a Q uj -i X. z or in > o u> co en Q g X i- — i- U n n n n n n n n n n Z < m u u. O I X. z O a o or in H D > § 2 5 N o in <£ r* co a LI U U U U u u u o : £ u u u u u O E H n n n n n n n n Z £ < n pi n n n n ID ao en UJ < m u X * O 0. O Or t/1 H D > K N CM r- >_> o t in U U U 1 U i 5 u Li u u u < -" s n n n K n rt n 1 1 n n n < < CO Q U u. O X * z O 0- O or in H D > S X >- G p* 00 CD u u u u u u u U U - L| u u u. Jjj I y z ft n n n n n H h n h n n n n n PI n n n n 1- CO UJ Li. ui IS oo < Q U X * i. z O 0- O or w D > 5 x > N O o »- u u u u u u u u u u z " u O n n n n n n Pi 1 n rl rt r Ui n n n n n n n n n p H n < z n n < < a u O u u. o i O Q- O a: w t- O > s x > o r- co at a u u u u i/> u u u - u. y y y y ft h O < CO o ol a or v> - D > 2 X > < u Q c < <

LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE INITIAL NAME OF OFFIC ER

BEING CONSIDER ED: < 3RADE:

II. PERSONAL QUALITIES COMPARE OFFICER ONLY WITH OTHERS OF THE SAME GRADE AND EXPERIENCE

1. LEARNING ABILITY THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE OFFICER GRASPS INSTRUCTIONS, ABSTRACT IDEAS OR CONCEPTS LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% REPORTING OFFICIAL: INDORSING OFFICIAL: Q fl Q Q Q fl fl fl fl A

2. ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY the degree to which the officer accepts responsibility for his own actions, those OF HIS SUBORDINATES AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES ASSIGNED TO HIM. LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% OFFICIAL: INDORSING OFF.CIAL: REPORT.NG D D D D D D D D D D D D D

3. WRITING ABILITY AND ORAL EXPRESSION the ABILITY OF THE OFFICER TO COMMUNICATE HIS IDEAS IN: i. WRITING (W) AND 2. SPEECH (S) LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% IW) REPORTING OFFICIAL: IW) INDORSING OFFICIAL: J u u u u

n n h n n n n IS) OFFICIAL: S S S S S S S S IS) INDORSING OFFICIAL: S - REPORTING u u u u u u A

i 4. BEARING AND BEHAVIOR THE EXTENT TO WHICH HE MEETS STANDARDS OF BEARING, DRESS AND COURTESY, AND ENHANCE! THE IMAGE OF THE AIR FORCE OFFICER. LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% REPORTING OFFICIAL: INDORSING OFFICIAL: D D D D D

5. ACCOMPLISHMENT THE DEGREE TO WHICH HE DISPLAYS FLEXIBILITY AND INGENUITY IN ACCOMPLISHING HIS DUTIES.

LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% LOWEST 10% HIGHEST 10% REPORTING OFFICIAL: INDORSING OFFICIAL: D D D D D D D D D D fl D I]

III. AIR FORCE CAREER RECOMMENDATION

F tEPORTING OFFICIAL: NOT MAY R RECOMMEND HIGHLY OUTSTANDING R RECOMMENDED RECOMMEND FOR AIR FORCE RECOMMENDED POTENTIAL FOR AIR FORCE IN THE FUTURE CAREER FOR AIR FORCE FOR AIR FORCE

1 NDORSING OFFICIAL: CAREER CAREER CAREER

IV. REPORTING OFFICIAL V. INDORSING OFFICIAL NAME-GRADE-ORGANIZATION AND COMMAND NAME-GRADE-ORGANIZATION AND COMMAND

DUTY TITLE DATE DUTY TITLE DATE

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

AC fOKM -no ID II CB II IT IE IK . Opti cal Sin ning S^slam*

MBLIOGftAPHT

Public Documents

Burke, Adm. Arleigh A., 0.8.K. "News and Views," CfrO 5hop Talk . U. . Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operation*, 28 March i960.

Craig, Jr., Mabin, Col. Hi3tory of the Officer 1efficiency Heport System

United States A nay 1775-1917 . U. §• Department of the *nsy» Office, Chief of Military History, 1953.

lee, Fitshugh, V. Adia. "Selection for Promotion," News Letter * Bureau of Naval Personnel, March 1963.

Rimland, Bernard. "Bureau of Naval Personnel Technical Bulletin 59-- An Analysis of Officer Fitness Report Buirsaaries," U. S. Department

of the Navy . 0. S. Naval Personnel Research Field Activity. San Diego, California: June 1959.

Title 10, 0. S. Code SD58. Washington, D. 8. 1 Government Printing Office, 1959.

0, S. Departzaent of the Air Force. Air Force Manual 36-10. Officer infective- ness and Training Reports . 25 July 1962.

9. S. Depart?** nt of the Army, personnel Research Section Report 896 1 (A Trend idy of Officer Efficiency Ratings for the Period 1922-1*45;, 15 Hay 1952.

U. S. tepartneiit of the Army. Army Regulation 623-105. Officer IXficlency Report e 17 January 1963.

U. S. Departiaent of the Army. Data Services and Administrative System Coao&nd, Computer Service Division, "Systems Memorandum Number 5-64, Officer File Data Currently Maintained on the Master Tape Record for Officer Personnel," 27 February 1964.

U. §. Departaent of the Navy. BUPERS Instruction 1611.12 (w chgs. 1 4 2). U April 1962.

U. 5. Department of the Navy. Bureau of Havul Personnel Research fie port 56-2 (History of the Officer Fitness Report), April 1956.

I . 9. Department of the Navy. Bureau of Haval Personnel Technical Bulletin 63-8 (Abstract of Research Reports), Psychological Research Branch, Personnel Research Division, August 1963.

U. ft. Tepartaent of the Havy. CPKAY Instruction 1040. . 9 Dec 1963.

. Department of the Navy, Review of Hanaflessent of the Departraent of the Kavy (MAVSXGS P-2426A), 15 Dec. 1962.

y*. S. Department of the Navy. "!.>tuay of Officer Fitness Reports Submitted M in 1957 and t-arly 195&» Personnel Research Memorandum 60-10 . Psy- chological Research Branch, wweau of Naval Personnel], Personnel

Research riviaion, Washington, . 5.1 rt. i960.

0. 5. Executive Cffice of the President. Bureau of Budget, Autptnatlc Lata

Processing -- Glossary . Washington, . 8*1 ttovernment Printing Office, December 1962.

Albers, Henry I. Organized xecutive Action; Eeciaion-friaking. Communication,

and Leadership . ?tew York; John fciley and Sons, Inc., 196.:.

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive . Caiabriage, Mass.: Harvard University Pr

Boishline, John Robert. Military Management for National Defense . New York: Prentlce-Kall, Inc., 1950.

' Bennett, Miliard . 'Manager Selection. Education and Training, . Hew York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959.

Buchhola, V/erner. Planning A Computer Systers. . $ew York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962.

Bursk, Fdward C. (ed.). The Management Team . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Canning, Richard C. Installing Electronic Data Processing Equipment . Hew York: John V.iley and Sons, Inc., 1957.

Chappie, flliot D. and Sayles, Leonard ;i. The Measure of Hana&smcnt . Sew York: The KacKillan Co., 1961.

Dautsn, Paul H*. Jr., (ed.). Current Issues and Emerging Concepts in Manage- ment . Boston: Houghton Mifilin Company, 1962.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. Fomocracy in America , ed. Richard L. iieffner. New York: New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1956.

• .

Shull, Fremont A., Jr., Selected Reading in Management . Honewocd, III.; * >,hard D. Irwin, Inc., .

Taube, "ortijaer. Computers and Coat^on Sense? The Kyth of Thinking Kachint . | Hew York: Columbia University Prees, 1961.

Vlalet, Joyce C. Fundamentals of llectrcnic Data Processing , helleeley Hills, Mass.: Honeywell. Electronic Data frecessing, 1963.

nsr, Lloyd, Van Riper* Peal P., et. tl . The African Federal Executive . New Haven, Conn.s tele University Press, 1963.

Wiener, Piorb^rt. The Hunan Use of Human Bo Inge . Garden City, I, T.j [oublfcd.y | Co., Inc., 1954

Young, Rose. Personnel Kanaal for Executives . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1?47.

Article and Periodicals

Argyris, Chria. "Organizational Effectiveness Under Stress," Harvard Business :levlew , Kay-June, I960.

Berry, F. Gordon and Coleaan, C. G., Jr. "Tougher Program for Management

Training," Harvard rfue^Laega review , Nev.-r&c. 195-

Berjpan, Kobert L. "Electronic Data Processing on the Verge of Maturity," Data Processing. July, 1962.

Bowman, Garda . "safoat Help® or Haras Proasotability? " harvard lousiness

Review . Jan. -Feb. 1964.

Brigante, John. "From the Thoughtful Businessman: letters, H (na print of a letter), Harvard Business Review > Kar.-At?r.« 1956.

Brooks, Theresas R. "Kaw Fit to the White Collar," Day's fteview ana iioaern

Industry , Sept, 19$$«

Craven, Capt. Francis S,, &*»*£, (Ret.). "A Business Machine fitnesa import Systera," United SUtes Naval Institute Proceeding*, Feb. 1963.

Chastain, ICdr. John A. "Inside the Hump," United States aaval Institute Proceadin^s, July 1959.

Gellin, Cdr. Alvin L. "Fffsctiveness: The Basic Criterion," united States

Haval Institute Proceeding , V-ril 196 .

Gaumnita and Brownies, ;. a. "^athenatics for Decision Makers," Harvard Business Review. Hay-June, 1956.

Gibson, Edmund A. '-Leaders and Leadership," United states Naval Institute roceedin, b . Karch 195A.

Harvard Business Review . 195A-1963.

Hemphill, John K. "Executive Job Description," Harvard business Review. Sept. -Get. 1959.

Hitchcock, Capt. John H. "Discrimination in Selection: Fact and Fancy," United states Naval Institute Proceedings.. 3ept. 196u.

Kindall, Alva F. and Gatsa, James. "Positive Program for Perforaamce Appraisal," Harvard Business Review. Nov .-Dee* 1963.

Massie, Joseph L. "Looking Around i Automation for Management," Harvard Business iieview , March-April, 1956.

Bayfield, Harold. "In Defense of Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business

Review . March-April, I960.

MoWurry, Robert B. "Conflicts in Huaa&n Values," Harvard Business Review. Hay-June, 1963.

. "Mental Illness in Business," Harvard Business Review. March 1959.

Koffett, "SAdra. K» A. "Ccnasent and Discussion," Letter in Hjaitsd States foaval Institute Proceedings . Sept. I960.

Moore, Loo I. "Too Much Managesaent, Too Little Change," Harvard Business

Review . Jan. -Feb., 1956.

fceedhaa, EAdm. Ray C, I '. . . *Gffloor Evaluation and Promotion," United

:^tee jlvh.I :n^tlt.t..- -roccecinj.'s , BOf** lf6< .

Noel, John V., Jr., ... "Discussion, Coanonto, Notes," Letter in United states Naval Institute Proceedings. Dec. 1955.

Horris, Lewis William. "Moral Hazards of an Executive," Harvard Business

Review, :--ept.-'ct. V; . f'eborn, Capt. Phillip R. "Discussion, Co-wonts, Motes," Letter In United

. t tes Waval Institute Proceedin&e. Aug. 194«.

Patterson, Leo. D, "Discussion, CosaBsnfcs, Notes," Letter in United states Kaval Institute Proceedings. Dee. 1955.

Patton, Arch, "How to Appraise Executive Performance, " Harvarc ^aainass

Review , Jan .-Feb., I960.

Patton, John A, "Th^ neraies of executive Output," Dun 'a rieview ana

Modem Industry , March 196; .

uinn, James 8. "How to Kvalu&te Research Output," Harvard Business Review March-April, I960.

Scanland, Capt. North, 9. ,M. "Standby . . . Vote," United states aiavai

I netitute Proceed i mm , June 1963.

Iter. "Mew Tool, Eev World," aunineas Week. ¥

Staff r-iter. "The Changing American Executives," Dun's gevlcw and Modern

Industry . Jan. 1964.

Stephens, Hon. Aaron F. (of New Hampshire). "Rank in the Navy," speech delivered to House of representatives on 23 Jan. 1871. Washington, D. C.j Judd and Detviler, Printers and Publishers, 1871.

Thurston, Phillip. "Who Should Control Information Systems," Harvard Business Review, Nov ••Doc. 1962,

United states Naval Tnatitut® .; roceedlnga . 1947-1963.

Ward, Lewis B. "Putting Executives to the Test," Harvard business Bevjew, July-August i960.

Wcinthaler, Edward L., Jr., "Developing Advanced Business Information

Systems," Data Processing , Oct. 1963.

Winsborough, Rob ; . "Heed for Evaluating Employees," The Comptroller , June 1955.

Wheeler, Jr., Rexford V., Cdr., U. . . ana Sheldon H. Kinney, €.,;-., . . . "The Prossotion of Career Officers," Unitfca states Naval Institute

Proceedings , June 195/*.

Wright, David McCcrd. "The Administrative Fallacy," Harvard Business 3eview , Vol. 36, No. 4, July-August, i960.

Eeiaorts

American Management Association, Inc. Advances in uP and Infcr^-qtlon systems. American Management Association, 1961.

. yiectr»nice in Action . New Torkt American Management Association, u 1957.

'. Stogdill, fi&l : . oons, Alvin (eds). Leadership aehavior; Its

Description *mli Keasureaent . Columbus, Dblpi The Ohio State Unlvers ; ty, 1957.

. . .

Stogdlll, Halph . ft&d Shantei, Corna.ll L. , -.t. .< . .-stents ^z -rative Perfpresence Columbus, Ghioj Ihe Ohio State University, 1956.

Unpublished Materials

Bayer, David A., Lt. U.S. H. "Formal id the Naval Line Officer." Unpublished Master's Thesis, U. S, Naval Postgraduate school, 1961.

r-unn, George C, Cdr., 8.C., 0.3.». and Ortiand, nornerlt, LCdr., . :., 1-. :>.*!,

"Officer 5 valuation.'' Unpublished Master's thesis, Kanagsmsnt School, U. S. Naval Postgraduate school, 1962.

Foley, Joseph F. "The Adequacy of Officer Fitness Reports." Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1950

Hanson, Otis A., It., f.S.I, "A Comparative and Analytical Study of Manage- ment Education in the K'avy," Unpublished Master's thesis, Management School, U. S. Naval Fostgradu&te School, 1961.

letter of Deputy Secretary of Defense JiosweH Gilpatric to Bon. John . KcCorraick, Speaker of the House of Representatives dated 3-9-63. (To amend Title 10, United States Code, outgrowth of Bolts Committee

Morin, Richard J. LCdr. 0.S.8, "An Analysis of the 8. 5. Navy Officer valuation Systes," Unpublished Master's thesis, U. S. Hav&l Post- graduate School, 1961.

Sullivan, W. M. "Selection of the Military Leader," unpublished Master's thesis, U. S. Naval Postgraauate School, (n.d.,<.

ther Sources

Interview with Maj. F. L. Lanathan, U.. . . ., Head ifficiency Report nr&nch, 1). 8« Air Force, Washington, D. C, March 31, 1964.

Interview with Charles sparks, Head, ADP Applications to Personnel livision, U. S. Civil Service Cossaission, washiiigton, D. C, March 26, 1964.

Interview with Donald ft. Stark, System Analyst, U. S. Army Data Services and Administrative System Coosaana, The Pentagon, Washington, D. C, March 26, 1964.