Tell Me I Suck

A Confession

I am not the greatest naval officer ever. I know, I know, that’s probably hard for you to read–certainly it’s hard for me to write–but deep down I know it to be true. Worse, I’m probably not even the greatest terminal O-4 ever, not even coming out of the Navy, let alone the Space Force. But supposing I wasn’t so… self-aware? Supposing I thought I was the greatest naval officer since John Paul Jones, who had one man flogged to death and ran another man through (also to death) and admittedly set a fairly low bar for greatness? Who would dispel me–who would dispel anyone–of that utterly delusional belief? Well, “fortunately,” in my case I can point to two (yes, two) letters of instruction and at least half a dozen other instances of written counseling (so many that a precise recollection of them all is not possible) during a single six month period.

Some background. Round about mid-2012, the Navy decided that rotating crews between minesweepers homeported in Bahrain and San Diego was a bad idea. Apparently the vessels weren’t very well maintained, and the lack of a real sense of “ownership” may have had something to do with it. Plus, when you have parts that may take months to order and receive (assuming they don’t get arbitrarily canceled by some off-ship entity), tracking repairs to completion can be difficult even if whoever happens to be on board for a given six-month period really does care deeply about the ship. Anyway, this was about the time I was slating for my first Department Head tour, and I really wanted a minesweeper. I would have liked the chance to live in San Diego and deploy to Bahrain on a rotational basis, sure, but faced with the choice between a full tour of actually “doing stuff” in Bahrain or sitting tied to the pier except for training in San Diego, I was all-in for Bahrain. So, when the Navy made the transition to permanent crews during the first half of FY14, I was setup perfectly to be among the “re-inaugural” permanent crew of one of those minesweepers in Bahrain.

As it happens, the particular minesweeper I ended up on had an INSURV scheduled to take place less than three months after I arrived with the permanent crew. As an added bonus, it was my first ever INSURV of any kind, let alone on a wooden ship with well-known sustainment issues. It was in that context that I received my half a dozen or so written counseling sessions and the two letters of instruction. Outside of that narrow window–six months in an almost fourteen year career–I received no other performance counseling of any kind, save for those mandated as part of the Navy’s periodic evaluation system (and sometimes I didn’t even get that). While it certainly wasn’t the best feeling in the world to be invited into the Captain’s Cabin to hear words to the effect of, “Why do you suck so much? Let me count the ways…” over and over again, those six months did more to develop me as an officer–in a good way–than all the rest of my time in the Navy combined.

With that in mind, and knowing full well that there is such a thing as “positive” counseling, the focus of this post will be on the kind of counseling that I received as a Lieutenant during my first Department Head tour: the “you suck” variety.

The References

One of the most surprising revelations, as I prepared for this post, was the dearth of actual references on how to conduct and document counseling. That counseling form everyone uses, the one that looks like the image at right? Good luck finding it: apparently, it no longer exists, at least not on any official Navy website, to include the one with all the NAVPERS forms currently in effect. The best I could come up with (and where I found the form to take that screen capture from) was a pdf version hosted by NavyFITREP.com, which, like this blog, is in no way affiliated with the Navy or the Department of Defense (link to page with downloadable form if you want it).

Update (1FEB2021): This page gets a fair amount of traffic from search engines (relative to the rest of the site), apparently from people looking for the old NAVPERS 1616/25 counseling sheet. I just noticed the link to the secondary source, NavyFITREP.com, changed recently and while it led to the appropriate host site, the pdf itself had moved elsewhere and the link wasn’t updated. I have fixed that by linking directly to the form. If the link is broken yet again and you really, really want a copy of the NAVPERS 1616/25, leave a comment below and I’ll host a copy of the downloadable pdf here instead.

So that’s an example of a reference “that isn’t,” but what about a reference “that is?” Here’s a few:

• BUPERS INSTRUCTION 1610.10E: Navy Performance Evaluation System (BUPERSINST 1610.10). Provides some useful guidance on how to conduct midterm counseling, which may be extrapolated to “negative” performance counseling in general.
• JAG INSTRUCTION 5800.7 (series): Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN). Specifically, this is the reference for “censure,” which may be punitive or non-punitive. For guidance on issuing a “nonpunitive letter of caution” (NPLOC) and what such a letter entails, the JAGMAN is the source.
• The Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN). Specifically, articles 1070-320 (Administrative Remarks), 1611-020 (Officer Detachment for Cause), 1616-010 (Enlisted Detachment for Cause), and 1910-202 (Counseling and Rehabilitation). In order to administratively separate or detach an individual for cause, a command may be called upon (even required) to submit proof that attempts were made to remedy bad behavior.
• USN/USMC Commander’s Quick Reference Legal Handbook (QUICKMAN). The QUICKMAN is the nearest thing to a reference for the oft-mentioned Letter of Instruction (LOI), which, according to the JAGMAN, is not the same thing as a NPLOC (and that’s all the JAGMAN has to say about LOIs). It also provides clarifying guidance on some of the things covered by other references.
• Local Guidance. It is conceivable that your commanding officer has signed out guidance on how/when/why to conduct counseling. You should, like, consider looking into that or something.
• ATP 6-22.1 The Counseling Process. Yeah, so… the A in this case stands for Army. What can I say? Call it “Army Dumb” if you want, but it’s actually got some pretty good stuff on how to conduct performance counseling. Apart from a few paragraphs on midterm counseling in BUPERSINST 1610.10, the Navy does not appear to have anything similar in its inventory. To be fair, maybe the Navy has such a reference and I just haven’t been able to find it, but then I suspect I’ve devoted way more time to this than the average division officer would even be able to, much less care to. Plus, I was a Lieutenant Commander on active duty until just over a year ago, and I’ve never seen or heard of such a reference. So, even if it exists, the inability to locate it readily kind of says something, right?

The What: Types of Counseling

There are two broad categories of counseling, formal and informal–even the Navy says so (it just doesn’t say what either is or when one may be more or less appropriate than the other).

Formal. Formal counseling must always include written counseling. I base that on requirements outlined in the MILPERSMAN and the QUICKMAN for Administrative Separation (ADSEP) and Detachment for Cause (DFC) under certain circumstances. If it’s not in writing, it didn’t happen. If it didn’t happen, it can’t be used as a basis for ADSEP or DFC. Types of formal counseling include:

• Nonpunitive Letter of Caution (NPLOC). Reference the JAGMAN and the QUICKMAN. As a subcategory of what the JAGMAN calls “nonpunitive censure” (which could also take the form of oral censure and I said we’re going to pretend doesn’t exist), it may be issued by any superior in the member’s of the chain of command. It specifically CANNOT be noted in a FITREP/EVAL or filed in the recipient’s official record. The underlying facts that prompted the issuance of the NPLOC, may, however, be mentioned in a FITREP or eval. For instance, if Ensign Timmy has shown up late to quarters twelve times during the reporting period and his Captain or Department Head chooses to issue him a NPLOC as a result, the FITREP can mention Ensign Timmy’s past tardiness, but it cannot mention that he received a NPLOC for it. Additionally, in the case of a DFC or ADSEP, the NPLOC may be attached or referenced as supporting documentation in some instances. If you ever feel compelled to issue one of these, read the JAGMAN: there is an example of one included in Appendix A.
• Letter of Instruction (LOI). Reference the QUICKMAN. Since it’s not mentioned in the JAGMAN, except in passing, you’d think this would be not quite as big of a deal as a super formal-sounding NPLOC, but it turns out getting a LOI actually kind of can be a big deal–an even bigger deal than a NPLOC. It’s strongly suggested, though not explicitly stated, that a LOI may only be issued to a subordinate by their Commanding Officer. Unlike a NPLOC, a LOI can go into the official record and can be noted in a FITREP, at the discretion of the Commanding Officer. If you ever receive a LOI from your Commanding Officer and it is going to be incorporated into your official service record (which is not a forgone conclusion: ask your CO at the time of issue if it’s not clear), you should know that you have a right to comment on matters addressed in the letter. If you receive one, read the QUICKMAN and maybe talk with a knowledgeable mentor. Because LOI’s do not appear to be clearly defined outside the QUICKMAN, and the QUICKMAN speaks only to use by the Commanding Officer and lists no other references for clarification, I would advise against ever issuing one to a subordinate if you are not, yourself, the Commanding Officer.
• NAVPERS 1070/613. Colloquially known as a “page 13” and referred to in MILERPSMAN 1070-320 as the proper means to document “Administrative Remarks,” which may include performance or conduct deficiencies. Of note, this form is specifically meant to be included in a member’s official record. While there are a variety of mundane reasons a page 13 might be called for or even required by instruction, when it comes to performance and conduct issues I have only ever seen page 13’s used to document the outcome of a Captain’s Mast, to check the box for documented counseling that may be required if the Commanding Officer chooses to pursue ADSEP or DFC against the individual at some point, near or long term. A page 13 entry, regardless of the circumstances, would most likely be handled (at least generated) by ship’s admin, not by a division officer performing counseling. I, personally, would never use a page 13 for counseling unless directed to do so (I never was).
• NAVPERS 1610/2 (Officer FITREP), NAVPERS 1616/26 (E1-E6 EVAL), and NAVPERS 1616/27 (E7-E9 EVAL). These are the same forms used in NAVFIT98 for periodic FITREPs and EVALs. They are also the forms required to be used for midterm counseling. I have never seen them used for performance counseling outside of midterms, but there’s about as much support in the references (more, actually) for using them as a template for counseling as what follows bellow.
• Counseling Chit (derived from the previously mentioned NAVPERS 1616/25 that apparently no longer exists). People use the old form or forms made to look like it all the time. If I were confronted by a sealawyer trying to claim that any counseling done on such a form is invalid, I would respond by noting that MILPERSMAN 1910-202 on Counseling and Rehabilitation (preparatory to an ADSEP) includes “[a]ny other written form of counseling” as an example of formal counseling that may fulfill the requirement for documentation of past deficiencies and efforts to correct. Technically, pen and ink remarks on a napkin would suffice, provided all other requirements were met.

Informal. All I’ll say about informal counseling is that it, too, can be documented, such as by keeping a log in an excel file or a personal notebook–just a line that it happened will do. This can be useful if, after several instances of informal counseling along similar lines, you finally break down and decide to perform formal written counseling. Having even a simple log of when and why past informal counseling events occurred can help to build that formal counseling, to populate it with known facts and dates that substantiate your claim that “this is a big deal, big enough to expend time and energy on.” Rather than having to make vague statements like, “I have told you many times to stop doing the thing, but you keep doing it,” you can write, “On September 1, September 2, November 11, and December 7, I told you to stop doing the thing, and each time you assured me that you would comply with my direction, but just yesterday you did the thing again.”

The How

The closest the Navy comes (that I could find) to “the how” of conducting performance counseling is found in Chapter 18 of BUPERSINST 1610.10E. If you’ve never read it before, you should definitely read the whole chapter prior to participating in a FITREP or EVAL debrief or performing midterm counseling. A point by point summary of applicable portions of the instruction that may be applied more generally to other situations involving (specifically negative) performance counseling is as follows:

• Keep in Mind the Objectives:
  • Identify the member’s shortcomings.
  • “Address specific performance problems,” concentrating on ways to improve.
  • Present a performance growth plan, if appropriate.
  • Ensure member has a “clear understanding” of why they are being counseled and acknowledge performance issues that prompted it.
  • “Review what is expected of the member” and ensure that they “understand the… expectations.”
• Preparation:
  • “Gather information and relevant materials.”
  • ***Editorializing*** Consider inviting someone else in the chain of command to provide input and participate in counseling. If you’re a divo counseling anyone but your Chief, invite the Chief if you have one. If it’s the Chief you’re counseling, consider discussing with your DH and another member of the mess that you feel you can go to, such as the Departmental LCPO or CMC.
  • “Determine the best time and place.” Reduce distractions to “devote full attention to the member.” Ensure member is notified.
  • “Plan the opening. Review the purpose and objectives of the session.”
  • “Plan the approach. The objective should be to improve performance.”
• Conducting the Counseling Session:
  • “Be yourself.” If you’re not super-friendly and outgoing normally, then don’t pretend to be.
  • “Convey acceptance of the member as a person and what he or she has to say. Acceptance does not imply agreement, but rather accepting the member’s right to have opinions and perceptions.”
  • “Clearly explain the purpose and objectives of the session and what you intend to accomplish.”
  • “Encourage members to participate in two-way communication.”
  • “Listen and do not interrupt the member.”
  • “Avoid confrontation and argument.”
  • “Focus on performance, not personality.”
  • “Focus on future expectations as well as past performance.”
  • “Emphasize strengths as well as areas requiring development.”
  • Focus on “reinforcing Navy’s expectations.”

The last line of the Navy’s “how to,” keeping in mind it’s written for midterm counseling, is: “Know when to terminate the counseling session. Conclude the session on a positive note, ensuring the member leaves the session in a positive frame of mind.” The first part still applies, but the second may not be achievable given the “corrective” nature of the counseling session. Instead, let’s say try and end on a hopeful note, with a sense that you’ve just completed a dialogue, that you have heard and understand any concerns the recipient of counseling may have raised, and that this has not just been some kind of “CYA” or “perfunctory” endeavor: you really do believe and expect that performance will improve as a result of this session, and that they and you both are making a good faith effort to meet the Navy’s expectations. Or something like that…

BT

Shifting focus to the Army’s counseling instruction, I’ll put a plug in for figures 2-1 (an example of a counseling outline) and 2-2 (an example of how a counselling session might play out). I highly recommend navigating to ATP 6-22.1 to check those out (that link again). Here, I want to specifically highlight tables 2-1 and 2-2, included below:

What I think the above captures that is worth considering, particularly as a JO, is how the form of counseling might vary depending upon the circumstances and the recipient. “Directive” may be good for a Seaman who needs to pull their head out of their ass and listen already, but something more towards the nondirective approach may be better for your Leading Petty Officer or a Work Center Supervisor. Or, you may find, based on the circumstances and personalities involved as you encounter them, that an inversion is necessary: the Seaman may benefit more from the discussion encouraging maturity and communication, especially if they’ve never gotten that speech (or discussion) before, and the LPO with sixteen years in may just need to be told to pull their head out of their ass and listen already (just don’t say it quite like that). Regardless, it shouldn’t be too controversial of a notion that a Seaman with sixteen months and a Petty Officer with sixteen years may respond differently if treated the same, and that you should at least consider how each individual might react to a more or less directive approach.

Table 2-2 is very similar to what I pulled out of BUPERINST 1610.10, but tailored more directly to the kind of negative performance counseling being discussed, and stated much more succinctly than even my bulleted list. I specifically want to highlight the common counseling mistakes that leaders should avoid in the lower left portion of the table. The first counseling session I ever conducted (or had any part in, for that matter) may or may not have involved me counseling my first Chief for his failure (or rather, his refusal) to obey a pretty damn simple order, and may or may not have involved me throwing a stack of papers to the deck because I was still in my newly-minted Ensign “sometimes it’s good to show ’em you’re mad” phase, followed by my Chief saying “Fuck it,” getting up, and walking out.

The Why: Why Bother?

As the immediately preceding example from my first ever counseling session may illustrate, sitting across from someone and having a real grown-up conversation about shortcomings and ways to improve can be taxing. Doubly so if you’re an Ensign straight out of college and a good chunk–maybe even most–of your division is older than you, to the point of being old enough to be your father in some cases. That was the dynamic between me and my Chief. But even before it gets to sitting across from someone, it can take a lot to have to put together the materials. Again, especially if you’re an Ensign and it’s your first time.

With the emotional drain and time sump that goes into counseling, good, well-considered counseling, why not just let minor deficiencies–anything short of Captain’s Mast-level offenses–slide? Or why not just make it a quick, informal, “verbal” counseling along the lines of “Uh, hey shipmate, don’t do that again”?

The Pessimistic View.

1. CYA. If the recipient of the counseling later does something monumentally stupid, something that garners a whole lot of attention above your level, you can have something to point to and show you “done tried to fix’em.” As an aside, you may also consider back-filling (or even pre-filling!) your immediate superior on such performance issues, because “above your level” might ultimately prove to be above their level, too, and they might appreciate the heads up that trouble is brewing. They might even give you some pointers on how to handle it.
2. Ease of separation. For enlisted service members whose performance has been subpar, a well-documented history of counseling can make it easier to ADSEP them. MILPERSMAN 1910-202 lists eight reasons for possible administrative separation that require formal counseling and an opportunity to correct deficiencies before separation processing can begin: no counseling, no ADSEP for your problem child (at least, not under any of the eight provisions listed in that article of the MILPERSMAN. Some things, like major misconduct, may not require a history of counseling).
3. Ease of detachment. In the case of a troublesome Chief or officer, having a paper trail on them can make it easier to “put them off the ship” via a Detachment for Cause. While a single significant incident, such as a criminal matter, may be sufficient to justify a DFC on its own, in more mundane cases where the basis is something like substandard performance over a period of months, documented counseling will be required to justify the DFC. In this regard, a DFC is similar to ADSEP, although they are separate processes and a DFC does not necessarily preclude someone from remaining in the Navy. MILPERSMAN 1611-020 (for officers) and MILPERSMAN 1616-010 (for Chiefs and certain petty officers) apply.
4. Just deserts. Some Commanding Officers (including at least one of mine) may consider certain milestone recommendations in FITREPs and EVALs or a certain level of End of Tour award to be a default, unless there is documented evidence of poor performance. Criticize this as an “everyone gets a trophy” mentality if you want, but it can be effective as a forcing function to ensure that members are adequately counseled on their shortcomings by subordinate chiefs and officers who may be lethargic or who do not fully buy into the supposed efficacy of formal written counseling. Come to think of it, I may have gotten my first NAM on similar grounds!

The Optimistic View.

1. Maybe it works? I certainly got better as a consequence of counseling I received during my first department head tour. And I feel I gave counseling to division officers and enlisted sailors that may have contributed to improvements in their performance as well. Certainly I don’t think any of the counseling I performed made things worse, especially since none of them were in the CYA category (and that is a danger in the CYA approach: the recipient of such counseling can sense it, and it tends to heighten distrust, so even when the point is CYA, aim for “Maybe it works?” when you come up with your plan for counselling).
2. Misunderstandings happen. You may find, provided you’ve properly initiated a two-way dialogue rather than a one-way smack down, that you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the situation, and it turns out you were wrong about everything. A well-considered counseling session can help clear the air in this regard. Either way, someone ought to learn something, right?
3. For your own good. The ability to give constructive criticism, tailored to the listener in such a way as to maximize the odds that they will receive it and act positively upon it, is a learned skill. It can make you a better officer and a better communicator in general. If you are continually reluctant to conduct formal counseling when warranted, you may even find yourself on the receiving end of counseling in which one of the performance issues you are being taken to task for is… a failure to provide adequate guidance (in the form of counseling) to subordinates who clearly need it.

Closing Thoughts

I opened by making reference to the six month period of my career in which I received extensive counseling–the only counseling I ever received apart from midterms. It definitely sucked, being told I sucked, but you know what sucked even more? Never once getting counseled during my first division officer tour, even though I know I could have used it, and then again never getting counseled during my second department head tour in which I daresay some of the things that came up in a certain head-shot FITREP (that still wasn’t technically adverse) were very much of the “misunderstandings happen” variety, and I would have appreciated a chance to help my Commanding Officer see through those misunderstandings prior to getting that FITREP. Regardless, whether I sucked and just didn’t realize it, or my Captain at the time was operating under certain misconceptions, the fact that I didn’t get that counseling made me feel kind of… worthless. And that feeling sucks way more than the passing sense of embarrassment that comes from sitting across from someone and being told, in effect, “You suck, but here’s how you can do better in the future.”

The only thing worse than finding out from your boss that you suck, is finding out that you’re not even worth the trouble of telling.

Tweet

If you find this post helpful or informative, please consider sharing via Facebook, Twitter, or any other means you can think of. In fact, even if you think it’s complete and utter garbage, go ahead and share with all your friends: let them tell me I suck, too!