"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message news:OZxhc.2126

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html

You know, the silly thing about all this records flap is that some of the
records are meaningless if you don't know how to interpret them.

snip

The other thing about FitReps that bears understanding is the fact that they
were not necessarily objective. In the military of the fifties and sixties,
and into the seventies, any evaluative mark less than "outstanding" was a
potential career breaker. A rating of Excellent to Outstanding could have
meant that you were Excellent to Outstanding, or it could have meant that,
while not particularly valuable, you were a nice guy to have around, and
were not a danger to anyone.

I was discussing this with my wife as the same thing happened in the
80s. When I was in the Air Force, airman performance reports had
rating from 1 to 9. "9" being the top. I don't recall how many
catagories there were but getting all 9s was pretty much the norm. It
was not uncommon in my unit for supervisor to have an APR sent back if
he/she gave a subordanate more the one "8" on an APR. Nobody I ever
worked with, got a 7 anywhere.

Contrast that to reviews we do in the large corporate environment
where I work now. We have "DN" Does not meet requirements, "IN"
Imrpovement needed, "M" Meets expectations, "VE" Very Effective, and
"E" Exceeds Expectations. If you show up for work and do you job
you'll get all "M"s from me. When I as in the Air Force that would
get you "all nines" (which was not uncommon at all).