LT R'mori
Counselor, DS13
SUBJECT’S NAME: Valeros, Rain
INTERVIEW STARDATE: 100347.6
PURPOSE AND CONTEXT OF EVALUATION
Basic Profile Assessment
CONCLUSION
Authority finds subject to be fit for active duty.
DISCUSSION
An experienced tactical officer, subject has undergone several psychiatric evaluations in the past, though was due for this updated baseline. At a glance, subject’s career trajectory is typical of one for his rank and position, though authority did uncover an abnormality in the form of likely undue influence on the part of subject’s father - a recently retired Commodore with Starfleet Intelligence. By the subject’s own admission, he has benefitted from organizational nepotism in the form of preferential assignments and career opportunities not afforded to his peers. Subject volunteered this as a positive and espoused the good it has done him, apparently without recognizing the negative connotations or ethical considerations. Subject views his parents as extremely supportive and was able to articulate a minor conflict of goals with regard to subject’s branch of service, though overall subject remains on his parents’ chosen path for him - that of a career officer on the path to captaincy. While authority recognizes that multi-generational traditions of service are not uncommon, it is important to recognize possible points of stress: did subject join Starfleet because HE wanted to, or because his parents expected it of him? While the truth likely lies in some level of overlap, his father’s strong influence in his early career raises authority’s level of concern.
In affect and planning both, subject presented as extremely easy-going. While authority views this in itself as supportive of good mental health, authority maintains a suspicion that the source of subject’s relaxed nature may stem from either, or a combination of, the security and/or guiding influence of his parents. Subject is extremely self-assured in his abilities, not quite rising to the level of arrogance. His recall of achievements focuses on the nature of his own involvement and the effect of the outcome on him personally, with only secondary consideration given to the big-picture objective outcome. Subject was readily able to laugh at past failures, indicating emotional resilience, though authority also suspects subject may not have experienced any major career or job-related setbacks to date that would truly test that resilience.
Subject’s worldview and outlook on the motivations of others both trend towards optimistic, though not particularly strongly, suggesting a viewpoint grounded in reality. Self-esteem is adequate and locus of control is primarily external. Authority expects subject will be well-suited to handle unforeseen challenges to achieve a positive outcome, though some concern remains about how he will react in the face of any significant hardships. Subject’s emotional support network is strong and secure, though driven by the aforementioned parental roots, rather than peer or social relationships. Subject’s stated recreational activities are solitary and may be insufficient for long-term stress management. Authority believes subject would benefit from increased peer-level social interaction.
Subject rated moderate-to-high in openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion, with a corresponding moderate-to-low negative emotionality. Several of these are driven by strong subscores. Creative imagination was particularly prevalent, correlating well with subject’s self-stated tactical mind. Authority expects him to excel in outside-the-box thinking in the application of his duties, though it may be prudent for command authorities to ensure this type of thinking remains grounded in reality. Similarly dominating subscores were present in the areas of respectfulness and assertiveness. Authority expects these traits will serve subject well in a future transition to command roles, though some caution with regard to potential burnout may be warranted.
It must be noted that subject overwhelmingly avoided answers of extremes in self-evaluation, leaving room for uncertainty as to what extent his moderate results may have been consciously attenuated. However, authority is satisfied with the overall picture provided.
LENGTH OF INTERVIEW: 1.5 hrs
END OF EVALUATION.