№ lp_1_2_03830
File format: docx
Character count: 17018
File size: 671 KB
The document is a Change Request aimed at updating and formalizing the EES and SDEP requirements within the MHHS market design.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
N/A
Subject:
Change Request
Document Type:
Change Request
Organization:
RECCo
Author:
Jonny Moore
Target Audience:
Programme Participants
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
06/07/2023
Change Date:
N/A
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
MHHS Design Updates
Document Type:
Change Request
Organization:
RECCo
Author:
Jonny Moore
Target Audience:
Programme Participants
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
06/07/2023
Modification Date:
N/A
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2023
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
MHHS Design Updates
Document Type:
Change Request
Organization:
RECCo
Author:
Jonny Moore
Target Audience:
Programme Participants
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
06/07/2023
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2016
Region / city:
United States
Topic:
Military evaluations, NCOER, OER, rating systems
Document Type:
Guide
Organization / Institution:
U.S. Army
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Military personnel involved in evaluations
Validity period:
Ongoing
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Coventry
Subject:
Higher Education, Academic Examination
Document Type:
Job Description
Organization:
Coventry University
Author:
Coventry University
Target Audience:
External Examiners, Academic Staff
Period of Activity:
4 years
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Program:
Credential Validation Service (CVS)
Tematika:
Program curriculum mapping
Jenis dokumen:
Curriculum mapping form
Komponen kurikulum:
Vocational Learning Outcomes (VLO)
Komponen keterampilan:
Essential Employability Skills (EES)
Struktur dokumen:
Course listing, outcomes alignment table, employability skills categories
Elemen yang dipetakan:
Course code, course title, course hours, course description
Kategori keterampilan:
Communication, Numeracy, Critical Thinking & Problem Solving, Information Management, Inter-personal, Personal
Tujuan pemetaan:
Alignment of courses with program learning outcomes and employability skills
Pengguna yang dituju:
Program curriculum developers and academic staff
Metode pemetaan:
Course-to-outcome alignment using matrix with marked indicators
Note:
Year
Document Type:
Procedure
Organization / Institution:
Canberra Health Services
Year:
2026
Region / city:
Online
Topic:
GSMA NESAS related corrections to TR 33.926
Document type:
Change request
Organization / institution:
3GPP
Author:
Ericsson, Nokia
Target audience:
3GPP Working Group
Effective period:
2026
Approval date:
2026-01-20
Change date:
2026-01-20
Year:
2015
Region / City:
Danville, IL
Subject:
Construction and drainage corrections at Danville National Cemetery
Document Type:
Solicitation
Agency / Organization:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), National Cemetery Administration (NCA)
Author:
Marilyn L. Rodriguez
Target Audience:
Small Business Contractors, SDVOSB Firms
Validity Period:
Until September 11, 2015
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
MHHS Design Updates
Document Type:
Change Request
Organization:
RECCo
Author:
Jonny Moore
Target Audience:
Programme Participants
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
06/07/2023
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Dallas, USA
Theme:
Radio Access Network
Document type:
Change Request
Organization / institution:
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2
Author:
vivo
Target audience:
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 participants
Period of validity:
From 2025-11-18
Approval date:
2025-11-18
Date of changes:
Not specified
Release:
Rel-19
Work item code:
NR_XR_Ph3-Core
Source to WG:
vivo
Source to TSG:
R2
Summary:
This Change Request details various updates and clarifications related to RLC protocol adjustments, particularly in the context of RX_Next and t-RxDiscard expiry processes, for Release 19.
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Prague, Czech Republic
Topic:
Technical Specifications
Document Type:
Change Request
Organ / Institution:
3GPP
Author:
Nokia
Target Audience:
Technical specialists in radio access networks
Period of Validity:
2025
Approval Date:
2025-10-23
Change Category:
A
Release:
19
Reason for Change:
Correction of a typo in the priority formula for CSI based on Doppler codebook
Affected Clauses:
5.2.3
Summary of Change:
τ replaces j in Pril,i,f,j
Consequences if not Approved:
Incorrect priority formula for CSI based on Doppler codebook
Other Comments:
Revision history available in the document
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Massachusetts
Theme:
Health Policy
Document Type:
Policy Updates
Organization:
MassHealth
Author:
MassHealth
Target Audience:
Healthcare providers, hospital administrators, policy makers
Period of Action:
Performance Year 2
Approval Date:
11/08/2024
Amendment Date:
12/27/2024
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Washington State
Subject:
Records retention
Document Type:
Official schedule
Institution:
Department of Corrections
Author:
Washington State Archives
Target Audience:
State agencies, Department of Corrections staff
Period of validity:
From April 5, 2023
Approval Date:
April 5, 2023
Amendment Date:
None listed
Revision History:
Last revision on April 5, 2023
Year:
2022
Region / city:
Online
Topic:
5G Network
Document Type:
Change Request
Organization / Institution:
3GPP
Author:
Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Huawei
Target Audience:
3GPP Working Groups
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
2022-08-19
Date of changes:
N/A
Category:
F
Release:
Rel-17
Work item code:
NR_redcap-Core
Proposed change affects:
UICC apps, ME, Radio Access Network, Core Network
Reason for change:
Clarification of SSB definitions for RedCap UEs and related measurement gap configurations
Summary of change:
Extra dot removed, added clarification on RedCap-specific intra-frequency measurement gap configuration and handling of handovers for RedCap UEs
Impact analysis:
Potential issues with interoperability and network behavior if the change is not approved, especially regarding RedCap UEs and RACH procedure
Clauses affected:
3.2, 9.2.4, 16.13.3, 16.3.5
Year:
2022
Note:
Region / city
Topic:
Sidelink enhancements in NR
Document type:
Draft Change Request
Organization / institution:
3GPP
Author:
Samsung
Approval date:
2022-01-31
Category:
F
Release:
Rel-17
Reason for change:
Corrections/additions to sidelink enhancement in NR
Summary of change:
Update text in clauses 16.2.4.1, 16.2.4.2, 16.2.4.3.1, and 16.3.0 to capture conflict information, prioritize PSFCH Tx/Rx, and define time gaps for conflicting TBs.
Consequences if not approved:
Incomplete support for sidelink enhancements in NR
Clauses affected:
16.2.4.1, 16.2.4.2, 16.2.4.3.1, 16.3.0, 16.3.1
Other specifications affected:
TS 38.211, TS 38.212, TS 38.214
Applications for New Awards; Rural Postsecondary and Economic Development Grant Program; Corrections
Year:
2021
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Postsecondary education, rural development, economic development
Document type:
Notice
Organization / Institution:
Department of Education
Author:
Michele Asha Cooper
Target audience:
Public and private non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education
Period of action:
Fiscal year 2021
Approval date:
November 5, 2021
Amendment date:
December 6, 2021
Note:
Year
Topic:
Housing Assistance Repayment Agreements
Document Type:
Guide
Agency/Institution:
HUD
Target Audience:
Owner/Agents (O/As), Property Managers
Context:
This guide provides instructions for setting up repayment agreements between Owner/Agents and residents in cases of overpayment of HUD assistance.
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Oklahoma
Topic:
Advanced technology for contraband detection in correctional facilities
Document Type:
Contract Solicitation
Agency/Organization:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Vendors and suppliers of detection technology
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Galactic
Topic:
Warp Engine, Navigation, Galactic Physics
Document Type:
Technical Note
Author:
Gabino Casanova
Target Audience:
Researchers in the field of space navigation and physics
Date of Approval:
2026
Period of Action:
Ongoing
Changes Date:
N/A