№ files_lp_3_process_7_091978
File format: docx
Character count: 2745
File size: 108 KB
Year:
2023
Region / City:
South Africa
Theme:
Nomination for Board Appointment
Document Type:
Nomination Form
Institution:
Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Nominees for Board Appointment
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Closing Date:
As indicated in the Government Gazette
Nominee Category:
Board Member Nominee
Nominee Details:
Required
Nominee Qualifications:
Required
Conflict of Interests Declaration:
Required
Security Vetting:
Subject to approval
Motivation:
Required
Personal Information Consent:
Required
Contact Information:
Required
Institution Making the Nomination:
Required
Context:
Form to nominate candidates for appointment to the South African Forestry Company LTD board.
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:
Not provided
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Research ethics, manuscript submission
Document type:
Template
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Authors submitting research articles
Period of validity:
Not provided
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
) 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:
2024
Region / city:
International
Topic:
Safety transport of radioactive materials
Document type:
Report
Organization / institution:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Author:
IAEA Secretariat
Target audience:
IAEA members, safety committees, regulators
Period of validity:
Not specified
Date of approval:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Australia
Topic:
Oncology, Pharmaceuticals
Document Type:
Resubmission
Institution:
Australian Government, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
Author:
AstraZeneca Pty Ltd.
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
November 2021
Date of Changes:
November 2021
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Geneva
Topic:
Design Law Treaty
Document Type:
Draft
Organ / Institution:
WIPO
Author:
Secretariat
Target Audience:
Diplomatic Conference Participants, WIPO Member States
Period of Effectiveness:
2023-2024
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Geneva
Topic:
Electric Vehicles, Battery Durability, Heavy Duty Vehicles
Document Type:
Informal Document
Organization / Institution:
United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe
Author:
Informal Working Group on Electric Vehicles and the Environment (EVE)
Target Audience:
Governments, regulators, and manufacturers involved in vehicle regulations
Period of validity:
2025-2026
Approval Date:
13 January 2025
Year:
2021
Note:
Region / City
Topic:
Youth Protection and Care Services
Document Type:
Checklist
Organization:
Youth Protection and Intervention Centre (YPIC)
Target Audience:
Social Workers, Case Managers, Youth Support Services
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Malaysia
Theme:
Public Health, Law Enforcement
Document Type:
Research Article
Institution:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication
Authors:
Ezarina Zakaria, Fauziah Ibrahim, Norulhuda Sarnon, Nazirah Hassan
Target Audience:
Policy Makers, Law Enforcement Agencies, Public Health Professionals
Period of Implementation:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2019
Region / city:
Wendelsheim, Germany
Topic:
Celiac disease, food additives, microbial transglutaminase
Document type:
Letter to the editor
Organization / institution:
AESKU.KIPP Institute
Authors:
Aaron Lerner, Torsten Matthias
Target audience:
Researchers, healthcare professionals
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
October 15, 2019
Modification date:
October 9, 2019
Year:
N/A
Region / City:
N/A
Theme:
History, English Monarchs
Document Type:
Exercise
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Students of English, History
Validity Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Detroit, MI
Theme:
City Council Contracts, Government Services
Document Type:
Council Agenda
Organization / Institution:
Detroit City Council
Author:
Detroit City Council
Target Audience:
City Council Members, Contractors, Local Government Agencies
Contract Period:
Various dates between 2017-2019
Date Approved:
December 19, 2018
Date Modified:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Australia
Topic:
Public Consultation on PBAC Medicine Submissions
Document Type:
Survey
Organization:
Department of Health, Australia
Author:
Department of Health
Target Audience:
Patients, carers, health professionals, consumer groups, public
Period of validity:
Until 31 January 2024
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Somerset
Topic:
Adoption Regulations Compliance
Document Type:
Court Judgment
Agency:
High Court of Justice, Family Division
Author:
Mrs Justice Roberts
Target Audience:
Legal and Adoption Agencies
Period of Validity:
November 2021
Approval Date:
10 November 2021
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2024-2025
Region / City:
New Brunswick, NJ
Topic:
Health Insurance for Graduate Students
Document Type:
Request Form
Organization / Institution:
Rutgers University
Author:
Office of Student Insurance
Target Audience:
Graduate Students
Effective Period:
Fall 2024, Spring 2025
Approval Date:
07/06/24
Modification Date:
07/06/24
Enrollment Deadline:
Sept. 25, 2024 (Fall 2024), Feb. 10, 2025 (Spring 2025)
Description:
This form is used by Graduate Part-Time students considered Full-Time by their department to enroll in the Student Health Insurance Plan.
Bid No:
SPO-11-506-FINAL
Year:
2026
Region / City:
North Carolina
Theme:
Real Estate, Procurement
Document Type:
Solicitation, Proposal
Organization:
North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Carolina Department of Information Technology
Author:
State of North Carolina
Target Audience:
Vendors, Contractors
Period of Validity:
February 6, 2026
Date of Approval:
February 6, 2026
Date of Changes:
None
Year:
2025
Institution:
Yale University; Yale New Haven Health System
Document type:
Administrative request form
Subject area:
Human subjects research oversight
Regulatory framework:
U.S. federal human research protection regulations
Responsible body:
Institutional Review Board
Related system:
IRES IRB
Intended users:
Principal Investigators; Unaffiliated Investigators
Scope:
Authorization and oversight of unaffiliated investigators
Jurisdiction:
United States
Ethical standards referenced:
Belmont Report; HHS 45 CFR 46; FDA 21 CFR 50; HIPAA
Approval authority:
Yale/YNHHS Institutional Signatory Official
Note:
Year
Document Type:
Memorandum of Understanding
Organ / Institution:
Bureau of Reclamation
Note:
Year
Theme:
Elderly Waiver, HCBS
Document Type:
Program Plan
Organization / Institution:
DHS
Target Audience:
Providers, AFC program license holders
Year:
2026
Region / City:
South Carolina
Subject:
Volunteerism, Community Service, Nonprofit Organizations
Document Type:
Resolution
Organization / Institution:
South Carolina House of Representatives
Author:
Members of the South Carolina House of Representatives
Target Audience:
General Public, Community Members, Students
Effective Period:
January 20, 2026
Approval Date:
January 20, 2026
Amendment Date:
None
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Diocese of Exeter, Devon
Theme:
Church Growth, Mission Strategy
Document Type:
Ad Clerum (Episcopal Letter)
Author:
Bishop Mike Harrison
Target Audience:
Clergy, Lay Leaders, and Congregations in Devon
Period of Action:
2026-2035
Approval Date:
January 2026
Date of Amendments:
N/A