Posted on Nov 1, 2015
What do you think of the new 30 month CSL Tour length?
37.2K
71
34
7
7
0
CSM
HRC
SGM
Army
Responses: 12
It's a tradeoff between longer tours for continuity and less leadership opportunities for other NCOs who want to be a CSM. That's basically a 20% reduction in the number of opportunities to be a CSM, at the expense of extended time in the job (for those who do get selected) and greater continuity (for the organizations). Personally, I think 24 months is enough time in the job, and that providing more leadership opportunities outweighs any continuity argument. Just offset the Commander and CSM rotations in alternating summers.
(7)
(0)
CSM Carl Cunningham
I can't believe I am saying this, but has the Army ever talked of raising the retirement age if you decide to enter the Command Sergeant Major/Key Billet program? Maybe if you raise it to 25-26 years, then that would reduce the retirement eligible population and it could eliminate the assignment of choice mentality with the junior CSM/SGM population.
Of course there are many other affects that would come from that (i.e. CSM/SGM's that get relieved, increased costs of retirement benefits, etc). I know it is not a fully developed solution, but it could work. Especially, if you penalized the CSM if they had to retire before the mandatory date. Example: If you enter the CSM program, to retire as a SGM, you must stay to 25-ish. If you retire early or get relieved, then you retire as a MSG.
Not sure if that increases the desireability, but it will surely attract committed CSM/SGM's and their families into the CSL program. Just a thought......
Of course there are many other affects that would come from that (i.e. CSM/SGM's that get relieved, increased costs of retirement benefits, etc). I know it is not a fully developed solution, but it could work. Especially, if you penalized the CSM if they had to retire before the mandatory date. Example: If you enter the CSM program, to retire as a SGM, you must stay to 25-ish. If you retire early or get relieved, then you retire as a MSG.
Not sure if that increases the desireability, but it will surely attract committed CSM/SGM's and their families into the CSL program. Just a thought......
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
CSM Carl Cunningham - I would think that some sort of a specialty pay and/or retention bonus for CSM jobs might help solve the problem. Make it financially worthwhile for people to take those assignments. A controversial approach to fund those specialty pay/bonuses would be to reduce the overall number of E-9 slots (by converting some of the SGM positions to E-8 slots), and then use the freed up funding to cover the cost of those specialty pay/bonuses. That would force some E-8s to either go ahead and retire as an E-8, or to fight for a smaller pool of E-9 slots (which would mostly be CSM positions) in order to increase their pay.
(0)
(0)
CSM Carl Cunningham
LTC Kevin B. , I do not think throwing money at the problem ever fixes anything. When you do that, you usually keep in personnel for the wrong reason.
The Army already conducted a grade plate review in recent years and have taken appropriate action in downgrading slots as required. Until you affect the retirement rules for a CSM/Key Billet, they will always be able to hold a little something over the head of HRC. It only makes HRC's job difficult when senior Soldiers try to get their way every time.
The Army already conducted a grade plate review in recent years and have taken appropriate action in downgrading slots as required. Until you affect the retirement rules for a CSM/Key Billet, they will always be able to hold a little something over the head of HRC. It only makes HRC's job difficult when senior Soldiers try to get their way every time.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
CSM Carl Cunningham - Financial incentives work in many, many places within the military's human resource management system. Financial incentives are used to attract people onto the team (GI bill, student loan repayment, etc.), to retain people (specialty pay, retention bonuses, etc.), to reclassify people (easier paths to promotion), etc. They do work.
The problem now is that many people can get E-9 pay without having to do the hardest E-9 work (i.e. the CSM jobs). So, the financial incentives are actually there to avoid those CSM positions. Why not change the incentives? If someone wants E-9 pay, they have to accept a CSM role. Link the promotion boards and the CSM slating process to where you'd have to jointly accept/reject them. Then, if they accept the promotion and the slot, they'd have to stay in three years to get that pay raise built into their retirement pay. You could even lock it in with a 3-year service obligation. That would have the same effect as changing the retirement rules.
HRC's problem is that they're dealing with E-9s after they've already earned the promotion. Take away that leverage by engaging a little earlier in their career.
The problem now is that many people can get E-9 pay without having to do the hardest E-9 work (i.e. the CSM jobs). So, the financial incentives are actually there to avoid those CSM positions. Why not change the incentives? If someone wants E-9 pay, they have to accept a CSM role. Link the promotion boards and the CSM slating process to where you'd have to jointly accept/reject them. Then, if they accept the promotion and the slot, they'd have to stay in three years to get that pay raise built into their retirement pay. You could even lock it in with a 3-year service obligation. That would have the same effect as changing the retirement rules.
HRC's problem is that they're dealing with E-9s after they've already earned the promotion. Take away that leverage by engaging a little earlier in their career.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I believe that the 30 month CSL will work, but have we ignored the REASON why we are going to 30 months? Quite simply there are many of our peers who are not competing because, although most seem to like the CSL process, an equal number of us do not like the assignments process following the release of the CSL. If you stay out of the program you actually have a say as to your assignment. In the program you have ZERO options. A friend was on the last BDE CSL and is basically being forced to go to jump school (it is a TRADOC position and he had no idea it was an airborne position) or retire. He is 45, in great shape, but has no urge to prove that gravity works. He goes to jump school next month. If he wasn't in the program he could have called SGM assignments and worked a job where he could be productive to the Army and enjoyed his job. Many of us also have children who are in High School and the CSL precludes any hope of stabilization. You may make the list, but get sent to another post which causes you to decide to take the position unaccompanied so your kid can graduate in the same school, retire or come out of the program. I have a friend who was at Drum and his CSL assignment was at Hood. He had a friend at Hood (same branch) who wanted to stay at Hood. They called CSL branch and basically said, "We can save you a ton of money by just leaving us where were are and swapping our CSL assignments". They were told to accept the positions or retire. Not the smartest way to run a railroad. If you come out of the program you seriously risk QSP. Hopefully they figure out how they are going to manage our population better and this will fix itself.
(6)
(0)
SGM Mike Barbieri
I freely admit that it is not Burger King in that you can simply have it your way when it comes to choices, but the individual Soldier's rank ordering directly correlates to their assignment (mostly, see EFMP below). The A Team will get their choice and the B Team won't.
In the examples you gave there were very specific policies in place along with direct guidelines that required movement despite potential cost savings and stability. In FY16, experience in multiple organizations was a driving requirement and as a result many dogs were moved simply to move them. That drove the removal of that verbiage from guidance this year so as to not recreate those same issues.
EFMP and MACP definitely impact that process significantly. Anyone involved in either of those two programs is automatically limited in comparison to their peers due to their specific circumstances. Others are also limited as their assignments are also affected by those programs. You could be number one on the OML, but you may not get your number one choice because it is the only location another Soldier cleared EFMP for or it is the only location that has a position for both members of a married couple. There are just too many nuances to the assignment process to have it work out as neat add we want it to be.
The board is missioned for certain requirements for each CMF; parachutists, Rangers, languages, etc. With an opt in board we are at the mercy of those competing. There may be a better qualified guy or gal out there, but if they decline they aren't part of the equation. The board selects the personal that are fully qualified of those who opt in. If only one person that is jump qualified competes and there is a parachutist requirement to fill, guess where they are going regardless of when they last had their knees in the breeze.
I would also offer that declining consideration is not tied to QSP. Though I can make a very compelling argument that sitting on one's laurels is. If a Soldier is in a CMF that is over strength, they have a decision to make about what will help position them in comparison to their peers. Declining and staying in back to back staff positions doesn't typically provide the same opportunities as those CSM green tab positions do and may result in QSP selection simply because they will be ranked lower in head to head comparison by the board.
In the examples you gave there were very specific policies in place along with direct guidelines that required movement despite potential cost savings and stability. In FY16, experience in multiple organizations was a driving requirement and as a result many dogs were moved simply to move them. That drove the removal of that verbiage from guidance this year so as to not recreate those same issues.
EFMP and MACP definitely impact that process significantly. Anyone involved in either of those two programs is automatically limited in comparison to their peers due to their specific circumstances. Others are also limited as their assignments are also affected by those programs. You could be number one on the OML, but you may not get your number one choice because it is the only location another Soldier cleared EFMP for or it is the only location that has a position for both members of a married couple. There are just too many nuances to the assignment process to have it work out as neat add we want it to be.
The board is missioned for certain requirements for each CMF; parachutists, Rangers, languages, etc. With an opt in board we are at the mercy of those competing. There may be a better qualified guy or gal out there, but if they decline they aren't part of the equation. The board selects the personal that are fully qualified of those who opt in. If only one person that is jump qualified competes and there is a parachutist requirement to fill, guess where they are going regardless of when they last had their knees in the breeze.
I would also offer that declining consideration is not tied to QSP. Though I can make a very compelling argument that sitting on one's laurels is. If a Soldier is in a CMF that is over strength, they have a decision to make about what will help position them in comparison to their peers. Declining and staying in back to back staff positions doesn't typically provide the same opportunities as those CSM green tab positions do and may result in QSP selection simply because they will be ranked lower in head to head comparison by the board.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Well, like I said it is a system run by people and that automatically makes it imperfect. I actually have zero sympathy for those who don't compete and then get shown the door. I agree; EFMP MACP and other "stuff" is weighed into the equation, but stand by my statement that we need to find out WHY people aren't competing. If you have the ability do do so check out the last two CSLs for non-master rated parachutists getting put in non-airborne positions when basic parachutist filled the airborne positions. It happened to me in 2011, and I was actually upset about it. In the end it was a blessing because with a herniated L5-S1 I am past my jumping days. Getting old may not be awesome but it is better than the alternative.
(2)
(0)
SGM Mike Barbieri
I can tell you why the airborne thing is what it is. They got a choice. There isn't a single ASI 5W requirement on an MTOE or TDA in the Army, they are all SQI P, parachutist positions. We have an agreement that we will attempt to fill them with Jumpmaster qualified personnel but that gets back to who is throwing their hat in the ring. You will see it this year as well. Many of those ASI 5W folks decided that they wanted to give their knees a break and asked for a TRADOC or USAG position vice an Airborne Brigade or Battalion.
We are still trying to get after the ultimate "why" that they aren't opting in, especially those coming right out of the Academy.
We are still trying to get after the ultimate "why" that they aren't opting in, especially those coming right out of the Academy.
(0)
(0)
CSM Carl Cunningham
Oh, I know the answer on the "why" SGM's coming out of the academy are not "opting in." The biggest reason I saw SGM's from Class 65 not competing is that they thought they were more likely to get the assignment they asked for by not competing.
There were two main reasons they did not compete though. The first was when I "heard" that Class 64 recommended to people that all the guys in their class got to go where they wanted if they did not compete. Obviously the principals got selected, and the alternates were the ones in limbo.
The second reason was that it was really stressful for the ALT's because they could be activated at anytime. So, it did seem pretty relaxed for the non-competes because they were usually going somewhere they wanted with no possibility of being activated. The comfort of being stable for a few years usually helped guys lead to the decision not to compete.
Of course some of this was heresy, but I know some of my classmates did not compete this year either because they are enjoying the stability for the family.
There were two main reasons they did not compete though. The first was when I "heard" that Class 64 recommended to people that all the guys in their class got to go where they wanted if they did not compete. Obviously the principals got selected, and the alternates were the ones in limbo.
The second reason was that it was really stressful for the ALT's because they could be activated at anytime. So, it did seem pretty relaxed for the non-competes because they were usually going somewhere they wanted with no possibility of being activated. The comfort of being stable for a few years usually helped guys lead to the decision not to compete.
Of course some of this was heresy, but I know some of my classmates did not compete this year either because they are enjoying the stability for the family.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
30 months will be fine, as long as we offset the Commander/CSM. In other words Commander X arrives, 15 months later the CSM X arrives....you get a better opportunity for growth for the unit and the Command Team.
(6)
(0)
SGM Mike Barbieri
There is no longer an effort to align the command teams, for the exact reasons you outlined.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google