Replies

"We also still do not know why the president's superiors filed a report saying they were unable to evaluate his performance for that year because he had not been present to be evaluated," he said.

Can someone tell me what this "unable to evaluate performance" means miltarily? I read in a post here today (I've searched for over an hour and can't relocate the post) where a Freeper explained that this did not mean Bush was not physically there to be evaluated but something else. Any help?

"Can someone tell me what this "unable to evaluate performance" means miltarily? I read in a post here today (I've searched for over an hour and can't relocate the post) where a Freeper explained that this did not mean Bush was not physically there to be evaluated but something else. Any help?"

This is probably what you remember seeing:

One other thing:

On an efficiency report/fitrep, the wording "not observed" means "not evaluated."

If he had been awol, they sure as heck would have written about that at length. They wouldn't have meekly said, "Not observed" if they meant "Awol."

They would have nailed any AWOL officer to the wall with their words. Probably something like, "This officer failed to report for duty during this period we supervised him and was AWOL. We recommend the immediate termination of this dirtbag with a less than honorable discharge!"

They don't pussyfoot around with awol officers.

131 posted on 02/10/2004 3:16:33 PM EST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!!)

The form McAwful refers to is called the "Officer Efficiency Report" and is a routine evaluation form filled out annually. As a Reserve Officer during those same years, I had OER's filled out on me, and filled out OER's on others.

The categories for evaluation had three "scores" to choose from: "Satisfactory", Unsatisfactory," and "Did not observe," to be applied to a list of critical job skills.

"Did not observe" meant just that--the rating officer had no DIRECT knowledge or observation of the officer's performance of the skill in question. It does NOT mean that the officer "was not present" or that the officer did not perform those skills.

It is a twisted distortion, of course, for the democrats to pretend otherwise.

Here's another related comment.

We've already discussed the "Not Observed" ---

It's the absolutely correct data for ANY officer not directly observed by his CO: The temporary duty station NEVER issues fitness reports (Air Force Officer Efficiency report or OER); those can ONLY be done by the actual commanding officer.

A "Not Observed" means that the officer in question was performing his duty and had no problems for that period (it NOT NEGATIVE information, but was not seen on a day-to-day basis by the CO.

Now, if you want to get promoted, you make sure your record is clean of "Not Observed" because they don't "puff up" your image and promote your impression.

But they are deliberately neutral comments.

305 posted on 02/10/2004 3:12:27 PM EST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)

"We also still do not know why the president's superiors filed a report saying they were unable to evaluate his performance for that year because he had not been present to be evaluated," he said.

When Bush went back to Texas after serving in Alabama, he was evaluated by offucers in the Texas ANG. Since he was in Alabama, and not in Texas, they had no basis for evaluation. Furthermore, as I recall, his records were not transferred back when he returned to his unit - an astoundingly common occurence even into the 1990s (I can't comment on more recent trends) - so there were no specifics in his records to base the evaluation on either.