Advancement Tests for E-4 to E-6

[Mary, Proud Mom of Nick]

Sea Duty Holds Key to Advancement
Story Number: NNS090911-16
Release Date: 9/11/2009 3:21:00 PM


By Ed Barker, Naval Education and Training Command Public Affairs

PENSACOLA, Fla. (NNS) -- According to a recent study by the Navy Advancement Center in Pensacola, Sailors looking for the best chances for advancement should consider sea duty over shore duty when given the option by their detailers.

The study showed statistically significant differences in the average standard exam scores, average final multiple scores and percent advancement for Sailors on sea duty. Advancements for Sailors on sea duty in paygrades E-4 to E-6 ranged from four to seven percent higher than their shore duty counterparts.

"Sailors are using their knowledge and training on sea duty while working directly in their rating, and that gets them advanced," said Jim Hawthorne, head of the Navy's Enlisted Advancement System Division at the Naval Education and Training Professional Development and Technology Center (NETPDTC). "While shore duty has quality-of-life advantages, the data clearly shows that sea duty has an advancement advantage."

"The chiefs writing the exam questions are asked what they expect their Sailors to know in the fleet and put that into the exam," said Master Chief Electrician's Mate (SS) Jeromie Cook, NETPDTC command master chief. "The advancement exams for most rates are focused on knowledge and skills that are acquired on sea duty, so to perform well on the exam, that's where you need to spend significant time."

"Getting advanced is a combination of several things," said Hawthorne. The final multiple score combines the exam standard score, award points, passed not-advanced points, time-in-grade and performance mark average. "Sea duty is not a magic bullet if you don't have sustained, superior performance."

[Mary, Proud Mom of Nick]

Okay, so we don't have to worry about the E-4 tests for our sailors but it's not easy getting to E-5 or E-6. Thought this article might be of interest.

[Nancy (aka nwig)]

Mary you're quick - I just read that article on Navy.mil. And you're right about it getting more difficult getting to E5 & E6. I think the only FC or ET Sailors that I know of who made E5 first time up were those who had taken an IA (Individual Augmentee) billet right after A-school (something done 2 yrs ago due to really long holds); and those Sailors got a first really high evaluation score plus extra points towards advancement.

Other than that, it's typically an average of 3 test cycles to advance to E5. And then when you add to that the ever decreasing advancement quota's; it's definately getting more and more challenging. Somewhere I've got the quotas for the past 3 or 4 cycles and if I get time I'll post them for some perspective.

[Mary, Proud Mom of Nick]

I agree with you Nancy, without IA...keep testing.

Nick called last night and Steve told him flat out that he would not make it this round as he was still a "Boot" ...after sitting in classes for the past 18 months, the last thing he wanted to be called was a boot! However until he goes out to sea apparently he is still a boot in the eyes of many. Nick did say alot of folks were surprised he was testing since he just checked into the ship. The time in grade will be an issue for him as well but hey it's still good to get a feel for what the test is like.

[Nancy (aka nwig)]

Mary, I too was surprised to hear Nick was testing; but what that says to me is that someone on the ship was on-the-ball enough to know he was coming and to order a test for him. Good on them.

And this is a good discussion you started as it gives a place for me to share what I’ve learned about the advancement process over the last 3 yrs that I’ve been learning about it.

While I know you understand why, I’ll share some numbers that show why it is so less likely for any first-time testers to advance. When James was home over Christmas I was able to get him to get me a copy of his “profile sheet”; that’s the document that shows the detail of all their points that went towards advancement along with a comparison to the average of their rate-matched peers. And for any first-time testers the numbers are pretty much the same; and it works out that if they can almost “ace” the test, then they have a shot at advancing.

I’ll do another post to explain the different elements, but since you probably already know about these elements I’ll just give a quick summary.

For the Sept08 cycle, the average of those FCs (group 1) who advanced had 1.7 PNA points, 1yr 9months time in paygrade, and an PMA average of 3.86. Those who are first testers will usually have 0 PNA points, 6months to 1year time in paygrade, and a PMA of 3.6. And when the weighting of those numbers are calculated, what it adds up to is that a new tester has to make a “standard score” of around 70 or higher, and the highest standard score that can be attained on the test is 80; where a standard score of around 40 is still passing for the test; and 50 is the average.

Nancy

[Nancy (aka nwig)]

The advancement results are based on a score called a Final Multiple Score (FMS). About year or so ago they changed the weighting of the calculation such that the exam score and PMA score have much greater weight in the calculation. Below is a chart that shows the makeup of the elements of what makes up this score. (click on the image to open it in a larger, easier to read, window):

What is not shown on the above chart are points for education; nor could I find an updated chart that shows it’s percent weight; and it seems that the points for edcuation are essentially considered “extra credit” points that simply gets added to calculate the FMS. They can get points for having either a 2yr or 4yr college degree. 2 points for an AA and 4 points for a BA.

If the test taker passes the exam but didn’t have a high enough overall FMS to advance they get points for “pass but not advanced” (PNA points), they can get anywhere from 0.5 – 3.0 points for each cycle based on their test score and performance eval score.

Then for the time that they have been in their paygrade, referred to as Career Rating Experience (CRE). This adds a weighting factor to the actual number of years/months they’ve been in their paygrade, called Service in Paygrade (SIPG).

And then there is the evaluation score or Permormance Mark Average (PMA) also referred to as Sustained Superior Performance (SSP). As seen in the chart this is put into a calculation that gives PMA more points in the FMS calculation. The PMA points that qualify one to test (as I understand it) has 3 levels: P “promotable”, MP “must promote”, EP “early promote”; only the descriptors referencing promotion don’t really mean what the term implies. MP or “must promote” does not mean they have to be advanced, it just means better than average. It’s best to view these as “average”, “above average”, & “excellent”. And each level equates to a number that is factored into the equation. P=3.6; MP=3.8; EP=4.0. And then for E5 the PMA’s are averaged over the last year; and for E6 it’s averaged over the last 3 years.

From what I’ve read over the last few years, it’s pretty standard that if you are new to the command and they don’t know you yet, and more have not “observed” your performance, then it’s pretty much “policy” to give the minimum that allows one to test, which is 3.6 points. And then if one gets stuck in indoc & cranking for 4 months after they get to the ship, then the second eval can turn out as a “P” because they still haven’t been in “observed” in their regular FC or ET job. And so they can get to their 3rd testing cycle before they get an MP; but then that is averaged against the other P they got, so the “above average” evaluation they just got gets watered down for effect in the FMS calculation.

Then they get points for various awards (ribbons/medals/commendation letters). Again most first (or even second) time testers will have 0 for awards. This is also the category where they get to add points if they have had greater than 90 days service in the middle east, Horn of Africa, Gitmo, or a few other terrroism-related locations.

The above is just a simplified explanation of the *basics* that go into the calculation that goes into the final score for determining who does/doesn’t advance. There are various further explainations that could be added for each of the above categories (and some more knowledgable than I may come along and comment on those). But I didn’t want to write an entire novel on the topic. And for those who want to read the entire advancement manual, do an internet search for the term “bupersinst 1430.16F”.

And the above doesn’t even address the aspect of “quotas”. Each cycle the Navy determines what percentage of the highest FMS scores will be allowed to advance. And so a person can have a really high FMS, but if the quota to advance is only 2%, then only the top 2% of FMS will advance.

[Nancy (aka nwig)]

And now for a word about Quotas. And sorry ET folks, since my son is an FC, I've only tracked the quotas for the FC rating; But I have tracked for both groups. In both the FC & ET ratings there are different groups where they compete against others in their group. And so FC is split into non-Aegis (group 1) and Aegis (group 2). Part of the reason I haven't tracked ET is that I have yet to be able to figure out which of the 5 or 6 groups that the regular "surface" ETs fall into. If someone can tell me that, I might be able to go find historical quota numbers for our ETs as well.

Like I've said, I've been watching & learning about advancement for a few years now, and I have quotas as far back as the March 06 cycle. There are 2 exam cycles each year, 6 months apart.

And so for FC's the quotas have been as follows:
............Non-Aegis......Aegis
Mar 06 ...33.50 ..............9.60
Sept 06 ..41.30 ..........34.40
Mar 07 ....43.76 ..........47.29
Sep 07 ...40.10 ..........70.98
Mar 08 ...43.13 ...........46.46
Sep 08 ...37.53 ..........31.25
Mar 09 ....25.29 ............2.54

And so clearly the quotas have been decreasing over the last few cycles, but also there have been pleasant surprises over the years (as in Sep 07 for Aegis). And no, there is no way to know or predict what the quotas will be each cycle. This is always one of the greatest sources of stress for those who have to wait the close to 2 months to find out results.

And as far as when the results are out; it’s typically sometime close to or before Thanksgiving in the Sept exam and close to or before Memorial day for March exam.

It used to be that the official Navy website and the NavyTimes would publish the list of names of those who advance on the same day as the Sailors finding out. But now most, if not all, Sailors get notified by their command before the names are published on the NavyTimes website.

And so, now the wait yet *again* begins.

[CCR]

Nancy, this blows my mind. Thanks for posting mary. It stands out that college experience can only enhance their advancement. Since cranking duty positions were filled, mine won't have it for a while, thats also a plus.

[Nancy (aka nwig)]

CCR - glad the info helps. Only, as for the delay in cranking helping, maybe-maybe-not. James arrived at his ship in June, but didn't start cranking until October; and the way it worked out with that schedule and how it fell with the advancement cycles, it has *really* worked against him. It's a big reason why he got stuck with 2 "P" ratings in a row; and when they average 2-3 cycles of evaluation scores (depending on how the Navy makes that determination), then by the time they can get an MP, or even an EP, it can get really watered down by averaging.

For some it may work out better to get the cranking out of the way as fast as possible so that all the things that could cause them to be "not observed" are out of the way witin the first evaluation cycle after arriving to the ship.

And then to add more to the confusion – it all depends on how each ship/department handles how evaluations are put together. In my son’s ship, it seems that his performance while cranking wasn’t really taken into account by the FC-shop-supervisor who wrote his evals; but I’ve heard that in some commands it’s different and what they do while cranking does get factored into evals. So again, it just depends on how each command and/or department does it.

Oh, and college “experience” doesn’t count – only completed *degrees* do.