Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
Steve - I don't know - certain words are used in the narrative now to qualify and enumerate how a rated officer should be viewed. When it comes down to it though - it depends on the character of the Rater and SR - are they doing those they rate and the Army a favor by providing an honest assessment, or are they sugar coating it? A more quantitative assessment might have been "out of the 10 officers I rate, this officer is number 1" or what have you. CO grades no longer get blocked, so I don't think they don't need to worry about busting profile on them.

However - given the number of U.S. citizens willing to serve in the military, under any conditions - I'd say she was of superior moral fiber then those unwilling to sacrifice something.

I'd also note that duds, are duds, and don't generally get any kind of good reviews these days - conditions have changed the consequences for keeping them in leadership.

So - I'll take the rater and SR at what they wrote - and wonder about what causes people to change, what that means in the face of war, and how are we going to take care of them so that we can sustain a flow of qualified volunteers to fill demanding leadership positions. I hope the reporters follow the story, I think its to our benefit to think about these issues.

Best Regards, Rob
Point taken. My perspective is skewed--I only rate LTCs so there has been a lot of weeding out by that point. One of mine just came out on the O6 list last week, so I guess I'm not killing them.