Candidate Espinos briefed the situation according to the five paragraph. SNM used his skeleton effectively to cover admin and logistic and command and signal which were not on my initial brief. SNC posted security but did not give him any specific instruction or check on them throughout the evaluation. SNC developed a plan and briefed his team effectively. SNC then tasked a candidate to cross body his weapon and navigate the obstacle. SNC did not address the fact that his candidate had not tied his boots and had his weapon on incorrectly preventing the candidate from being able to accomplish his part of the mission. SNC made adjustments as needed to get his team to the other side. SNC inspired a sense of urgency and mission accomplishment.
Candidate Perras delivered the five paragraph order in the correct order and covered all details; however, he did tend to take long pauses that did not allow for the order to flow. During the execution phase, SNC lost sight of the tactical mindset by allowing a member to pass off his weapon. Even though the fire team remained focused on accomplishing the mission, at times they seemed lathargic. SNC maintained solid communication with the security. Upon realizing that his initial plan of attack was not going to work, he quickly devised a new plan without hesitation. He was able to use all of the fire team members effectively and they followed his lead without hesitation or conflict. SNC remained calm and confident and there was no question
Candidate McKenzy demonstrated and understanding on how to conduct a five paragraph order but omitted key information throughout the entirety of the brief. SNC displayed he was somewhat confident with his brief by his calm demeanor using a conversational tone during his brief. SNC stated there is no need for security prior to conducting his brief. The scheme of maneuver was vague, and non-executable without further guidance. The tasking statement stated basic billet assignments as who was the ready, fire and the assist. Once the execution began, SNC was in control of his subordinates and effectively communicated adjustments to the initial plan. Upon the first friction point, SNC remained calm and was able to devise a new plan and maintained
Candidate Genter began his brief strong with an Orientation that included key terrain in the area. However, SNC's Execution paragraph not only lacked detail, but completely omitted Tasks and any executable plan to accomplish the mission. The extent of SNC's Scheme of Maneuver was to utilize the planks to move, causing many questions from his fire team members following his brief. SNC's lack of initial plan significantly hindered the sense of urgency with which his fire team moved, and in his absence of direction, another team member began to make decisions and direct the team leader and the rest of the fire team what to do. When SNC did communicate to his fire team, he did so in a composed and calm tone of voice. However, this did little
Candidate Martinez began the SULE I evaluation with a standard five paragraph order. Although it was a standard brief, SNC failed to give an adequate mission and execution paragraphs. The statements were disjointed and confusing and were briefed without confidence. SNC was briefed that the mission was to get the map found at the weapons cache and brought back to MA2A IOT have S2 Intel look at it. Candidate Martinez was given the map and reminded that it was part of the mission and not to forget it. SNC started the execution without the map, ultimately failing the mission. During execution Candidate had little regard for the tactical situation as demonstrated with little to no communication for formations at danger areas or dispersion.
Candidate Lamb posted security prior to the beginning of his brief. Candidates Lamb's brief was delivered confidently, naturally, and not rehearsed. SNC was very comfortable delivery the 5 paragraph order. During his brief, SNC oriented his fire team and provided references to aid in the understanding of his order. Prior to execution, SNC developed an initial plan that included all the elements necessary to complete the mission. During execution, SNC was able to make decisions at points of friction. SNC was able to develop a sensible and comprehensive plan by gathering intelligence and taking suggestions. However, SNC did not rely solely on the suggestions of others to make informed decisions. At points of friction, SNC checked on the
Candidate Horton showed a firm grasp of the OSMEAC format and briefed a solid five paragraph order with confidence. The information he briefed was accurate based off the information provided to him by the evaluator. SNC focused on safety as well, instructing his fire team during coordinating instructions to not throw any of the equipment without being told by the evaluator. SNC's tasking statements contained purpose, showing he put some thought into how each member could be utilized to meet the objective and accomplish the mission. SNC addressed the tactical situation and ensured security was posted before briefing the order. SNC was clearly in charge of his fire team. SNC made good use of his fire team, ensuring security was posted at
Candidate Blackmon successfully plotted the current location of the objective. SNC’s five paragraph order was delivered confidently, however he did not properly state the friendly situation. SNC stated that friendly units were northwest of the current location instead of friendly units being one mile north then west along Guadalcanal. Without this information SNC’s brief was inaccurate. Though SNC was confident during his brief, he did not have the attention of his squad as members who were focusing in different directions staring into the trees or cleaning their nails. The squad's lack of attention was ignored by the squad leader. After engaging the enemy SNC was informed that he sustained casualties and the bridge was covered by enemy fire
Candidate Kautz briefed a detailed orientation with confidence and clarity. His five paragraph order was complete and briefed thoroughly to his fire team. Candidate Kautz was not the first one on the platform and stood in the back attempting to control his fire team. This caused him to lose control of members and not fully understand the points of friction. Candidate Kautz failed to display a sense of urgency and make decisions quickly when asked by his fire team. Though he maintained confident, his decision making ability lacked. Once he identified his solution would not work, there was a pause of over two minutes in which he stopped to create another solution to the problem. His fire team appeared to respect SNC and he was clearly
SNC did not initially ensure 360 degree security at the assembly area. SNC’s enemy situation lacked significant details. SNC’s friendly situation was not briefed in the proper format. SNC’s scheme of maneuver was not complete enough to be executed and his tasking statements did not have an associated purpose. At the beginning of execution SNC attempted to give a command to his fire team leaders to get ready to begin their movement; when nobody in his squad responded he announced that fire team leaders had 30 seconds to get ready to move. SNC was an ineffective communicator; he attempted hand and arm signals after receiving indirect fire and would give vague tasks to unspecified individuals instead of his fire team leaders. Upon enemy contact
SNC’s five paragraph order contained most of the pertinent information required to conduct the mission, but was punctuated with filler words and the occasional use of nonsensical terms such as “armed with small ammo arms (sic).” These deficiencies detracted from the order and made it difficult to understand. SNC tasked his fire teams with navigation, aid and litter, and ammunition transportation. During movement to the objective, SNC’s squad became strung out and dispersion between the first fire team and the ammunition bearing fire team was approximately 20 meters. SNC did not assess dispersion during movement and did not position himself in a manner where he could effectively manage his squad. During enemy contact, SNC stood to the rear
Candidate Passafume delivered an incomplete brief lacking confidence to his squad. SNC displayed a great amount of confusion as he relayed his brief. SNC failed to properly calculate a proper azimuth or the location of the objective. It was difficult for SNC to read his notes he had taken. SNC failed to properly summarize the Orientation; he simply briefed the coordinates of the current location and the objective. SNC failed to brief Attachments and detachments, as well as the Location of Key personnel. Lack of this information made it difficult for the team to fully comprehend, creating questions at the conclusion of the brief. At multiple times throughout the evolution of the scenario, security was addressed by members of the team. One candidate
Candidate Jacobs exhibited a basic understanding of the five paragraph order; however, SNC was missing many small details within the brief. SNC’s Situation paragraph was missing a complete enemy situation and adjacent and supporting elements. SNC’s tasking statements were simply general assignments of responsibilities, lacking the 5W’s format and task & purpose statements. SNC failed to brief the corpsman’s location within the Administration & Logistics plan and the location of key leaders in Command & Signal paragraphs. SNC did not conduct a reconnaissance of the obstacle and failed to develop a cohesive plan. This failure to develop a plan prior to briefing his order forced SNC to develop a plan as he approached the obstacle. SNC was able
Candidate Oredola got off to a rough start but made a quick recovery during execution of the mission. After receiving the order to brief back to his Fireteam, SNC confused the Situation paragraph of his order and mixed up the enemy situation with the friendly situation when the briefing his Fireteam. SNC lost valuable time when he began executing the mission spending an excessive amount of time making several attempts at his initial plan. Although SNC lost time, he did not lose momentum, SNC had a keen sense of urgency, keeping track of the time remaining to complete the obstacle down to the minute and providing direction to his Fireteam in a firm, confident manner, and keeping his Fireteam focused on the mission objective. SNC was clearly
SNC briefed an incorrect objective and enemy location in his Orientation and Situation paragraphs. SNC's tasking statements did not indicate that SNC had thought ahead to possible obstacles during execution. SNC did not establish security while briefing his five paragraph order. SNC took over half of his time briefing his five paragraph order, and did not leave himself enough time to accomplish his mission within the allotted period. SNC allowed his navigator to stop to check their azimuth too often for such a short movement. SNC executed his plan and made a reasonable formation change prior to contact with the enemy based off the distance his team had traveled. SNC delivered a decent ADDRAC Report but failed to communicate or control his team
Candidate Olesh, hereby referred to as SNC, delivered a disorganized five paragraph order which adequately addressed all topics. SNC confidence built as SNC progressed through the brief, however SNC appeared to lose confidence and the quality and clarity of the order degraded. SNC developed a poor initial plan which SNC attempted to alter. SNC appeared to be in charge during the problem and SNC’s subordinates complied when given instruction. SNC was not deterred when SNC’s fire team incurred a casualty penalty, which demonstrated SNC may have the ability to overcome adversity and work through friction. After several failed attempts by SNC’s subordinates to overcome an obstacle, SNC attempted, failed, and made adjustments to SNC’s plan.