By Garland Davis
They were called Quarterly Marks, Semi-Annual Evaluations, and Annual Evaluations. They often caused many headaches for the Petty Officers and Chiefs. Many times what was submitted came back in a form that no way resembled the original input.
The following is an example of the evolution of a problem child Seaman’s evaluations as they progress through the Chain of Command.
LPO’s input on SN Frickerts evaluations:
SN Frickert is barely trainable. His work is poor even with a Petty Officer standing over him. He has raggedy uniforms and has to be supervised to send his stuff to the laundry on laundry day. He has to be taken to the barbershop to get a haircut. He is usually late for quarters unless somebody forces him. He is always on time for the Roach Coach, chow time and liberty call. He is a mouthy little SOB and talks all the time and has something to say about everything and everyone. He is a wart on the forehead of the division and is not recommended for reenlistment.
Division CPO’s input:
SN Frickert presents a leadership challenge. His performance is inadequate even with constant supervision. He is lax in his personal hygiene and care of his uniforms. A recent seabag inspection makes me believe that he would probably have difficulty in appearing in the proper uniform in which to take a shower. He is prone to run his mouth, criticizing every job and person, as a matter of fact, he has enough mouth for two sets of teeth. He has problems with mustering on time for shipboard evolutions. He does manage to make the chow line early and is first on the pier for the Mobile Canteen and it behooves a person not to slow down on the gangway at Liberty Call. He pulls down the reputation of the Division. I do not recommend him for reenlistment.
Division Officer’s content:
SN Frickert has presented a challenge but with hands-on supervision, his performance has improved. He has presented problems with hygiene and clothing issues, but the results of a recent clothing inspection have pinpointed problems and will soon be corrected. He is a loquacious individual who is willing to contribute positively and negatively to any evolution. He is, at times, lax in punctuality mustering for some functions but not all. With positive oversite, he is improving and in time will become an asset to the division. With positive encouragement, he should become eligible for reenlistment when the time comes.
Department Heads input:
Seaman Frickert is developing into an adequate sailor with the potential to excel. He is solving his uniform problems and is working hard on a punctuality issue. He is a knowledgeable sailor and is willing to offer advice on any evolution of the Deck Department. If positive improvement continues and in keeping with the Command’s goal of maintaining a 100% reenlistment rate, he is recommended for reenlistment.
Final evaluation edited and approved by the XO:
Seaman Frickert has developed into an excellent member of the ship’s company. He works well with his Petty Officers. He is cognizant of uniform regulations and has recently made a tremendous effort in upgrading his uniform issue. He is a knowledgeable individual with an amazing insight into all shipboard evolutions and is willing to lend direction and advise to his peers as well as his seniors. He is highly recommended for reenlistment and for advancement to Boatswain’s Mate Third Class.
2 thoughts on “Quarterly Marks”
It’s in this same manner that complaints become policy.
Seen it many times, once I was the Chief and sent my recommendation, I told the DIVO and DH, they change it, I will walk mine to the XO or CO. And I have booted out a few shitbags for being just that, shitbags 🙂