Posted on May 27, 2015
Steep decline in promotion rates? What does it mean for the Army?
95.3K
211
119
22
22
0
I have some friends who are up for the FY15 LTC Army Competitive Category (ACC) board. The **rumor** is that the board results were pulled back because promotion rates were below 50%. Compare this to the 2012 story below where promotion rates to LTC were 83%. Is this the "new normal"? Why would promotion rates be so low? Is reduced force structure to blame? Too many O-5s and O-6s still on active duty? Is the Army trying to get rid of the generation that fought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20120729/NEWS/207290315/O-5-selections-plummet-lowest-rate-decade
http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20120729/NEWS/207290315/O-5-selections-plummet-lowest-rate-decade
Officers
Promotions
LTC
MAJ
Army
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 34
23
23
0
I'm at year 18 -- when I came in in 1996, it was a big deal to retire as a LTC -- because so few folks made it that far.
Looking at your profile, this probably is unheard of for you. But just as we've dropped the "no major left behind" program at CGSC & are back to actually boarding all attendees, we have no need to keep or promote every person we have on the rolls.
Yep, that could feel like a sucker punch, but in reality, your year group came in on a high note and just hasn't seen a time when career progression was reality instead of a bubble.
Agree that it's annoying to see less-than-stellar individuals leading, but talent management has plenty of discussion streams here on RP -- a much bigger issue.
Looking at your profile, this probably is unheard of for you. But just as we've dropped the "no major left behind" program at CGSC & are back to actually boarding all attendees, we have no need to keep or promote every person we have on the rolls.
Yep, that could feel like a sucker punch, but in reality, your year group came in on a high note and just hasn't seen a time when career progression was reality instead of a bubble.
Agree that it's annoying to see less-than-stellar individuals leading, but talent management has plenty of discussion streams here on RP -- a much bigger issue.
(23)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Moon, you are looking at the aggregate number for the promotion board. Depending on your specific branch it could have been as low as 35%.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
A MAJ Jäger said, there needs to be more transparency and if we are "trimming the force allowing only the best and brightest to stay" that should apply all the way to the top. No exceptions. If a GOMAR is a kiss of death for a 0-3 then it certainly should be for an 0-5/6/7 etc.
The military needs to publish the board evaluation criteria and ALSO the metrics/ demographics of WHO they pick up to see if the words match the actions. Do certain MOSs, alumni, gender, race, year group, OER scores, disciplinary records etc get differing results with the board. The Major is right, if the issue is the standard and quality apply that to everyone equally and transparently.
The military needs to publish the board evaluation criteria and ALSO the metrics/ demographics of WHO they pick up to see if the words match the actions. Do certain MOSs, alumni, gender, race, year group, OER scores, disciplinary records etc get differing results with the board. The Major is right, if the issue is the standard and quality apply that to everyone equally and transparently.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The “no major left behind” phrase was used commonly to refer to the Active Army’s decision to eliminate a boarding process for CGSC (then ILE) attendance. Everybody got to go to the resident school, whereas previously only about 50% were selected, and some only for the “box of books” distance learning program. Both of these acted as a vector check on FGOs’ careers. If you didn’t get selected for CGSC/ILE, it was unlikely that you’d make LTC. When we needed numbers, everyone got to go to the school (which had less demand bc some folks were unavailable due to deployment), thus, like the educational law “No Child Left Behind,” no majors were left behind.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
This happens every time following major conflicts. As drawdown of forces occur, the need for the various ranks are reduced, particularly those at the top. While those at the top are career officers, they are less likely to leave early and, as a result, the military gets top heavy, which affects promotion rates to those higher ranks.
The only way to alleviate the situation is to convene SERB Boards with the promotion boards. Promotion boards select the best qualified for promotion, while the SERB boards identify and select the least productive/qualified personnel for early retirement, freeing up the slots for those selected for promotion.
Maybe the Army should consider the "temporary promotion" policies that were used in previous times (like WW II), whereas people are temporarily promoted during time of war, but revert back to their "permanent rank" in peacetime.
The only way to alleviate the situation is to convene SERB Boards with the promotion boards. Promotion boards select the best qualified for promotion, while the SERB boards identify and select the least productive/qualified personnel for early retirement, freeing up the slots for those selected for promotion.
Maybe the Army should consider the "temporary promotion" policies that were used in previous times (like WW II), whereas people are temporarily promoted during time of war, but revert back to their "permanent rank" in peacetime.
(11)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
MAJ (Join to see)
I have lived through a few of these and there is no perfect system. If, as you say, the SERB results only got those who voluntarily retired, there will probably be another round to force others out. Until the end strength is where it needs to be and promotion rates are high enough to keep quality personnel in, the Army will continue to mold the force through identification and elimination of under-performers (as compared to their peers). But, as I stated, there is no perfect system and it is certainly not fool proof. Who is considered an under-performer is in the eyes of the beholder. Most are not that clear cut.
For example, I noticed that you are an Infantry officer assigned as an Army Attaché (which, I guess, means you are a FAO). That, at least in my experience, puts you at risk when compared to your peers who served in operational assignments (S3/XO, etc) as majors and who would be considered more "branch qualified" than you. That has been a problem with FAO, Special Operations, Aviation, and other "specialties" in the Army for years. Officers serving in those specialties were being passed over for schools and promotions at a much higher rate than their peers due to the amount of time they spent "outside their branch". That has been partially alleviated by creation of the Aviation Branch, Special Operations Branch and full-time Acquisition assignments, however, to my knowledge, the FAO issue had not been addressed. Maybe it has now... That is the reason I had strings pulled to get me out of FAO (I lived in Paris for 14 years, speak fluent French, etc. and was selected for French Command and Staff College and an assignment to the embassy in Paris). Although that would have been a great assignment (5 years in Paris), I knew it would be the kiss of death and I would never have made it past LTC, if I had gotten that far. As such, I had some folks help get me out of it. Hopefully, that issue has now been resolved. As important as FAOs are to our military and country, they have been getting the short end of the stick in boards.
Unfortunately, things will most likely get worse before they get better and a lot of good officers will suffer because of it (and a lot of officer who are content to just get by will continue to do so).
I have lived through a few of these and there is no perfect system. If, as you say, the SERB results only got those who voluntarily retired, there will probably be another round to force others out. Until the end strength is where it needs to be and promotion rates are high enough to keep quality personnel in, the Army will continue to mold the force through identification and elimination of under-performers (as compared to their peers). But, as I stated, there is no perfect system and it is certainly not fool proof. Who is considered an under-performer is in the eyes of the beholder. Most are not that clear cut.
For example, I noticed that you are an Infantry officer assigned as an Army Attaché (which, I guess, means you are a FAO). That, at least in my experience, puts you at risk when compared to your peers who served in operational assignments (S3/XO, etc) as majors and who would be considered more "branch qualified" than you. That has been a problem with FAO, Special Operations, Aviation, and other "specialties" in the Army for years. Officers serving in those specialties were being passed over for schools and promotions at a much higher rate than their peers due to the amount of time they spent "outside their branch". That has been partially alleviated by creation of the Aviation Branch, Special Operations Branch and full-time Acquisition assignments, however, to my knowledge, the FAO issue had not been addressed. Maybe it has now... That is the reason I had strings pulled to get me out of FAO (I lived in Paris for 14 years, speak fluent French, etc. and was selected for French Command and Staff College and an assignment to the embassy in Paris). Although that would have been a great assignment (5 years in Paris), I knew it would be the kiss of death and I would never have made it past LTC, if I had gotten that far. As such, I had some folks help get me out of it. Hopefully, that issue has now been resolved. As important as FAOs are to our military and country, they have been getting the short end of the stick in boards.
Unfortunately, things will most likely get worse before they get better and a lot of good officers will suffer because of it (and a lot of officer who are content to just get by will continue to do so).
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Jean (John) F. B. Sir: thanks for the comment. Two points: 1) FAO I has been single-tracked since the late 90s and now FAOs compete with other operational support types for promotion; recent FAO promotion rates are just slightly higher than the Army average; 2) folks in my year group and those just a bit older and younger aren't at risk for non-select because of our branch, or because of our performance, but because the Army has opted to manage the force structure by cutting younger officers vs. targeting senior officer reductions. This is a choice the Army is making---cut the year groups that have been at war since they commissioned in 99 and later but keep ltcs for 28 years and cols for 30, while continuing to maintain bloated levels of GOs for a force structure reduced by 90,000 Soldiers. The message this sends is not pleasant. It also is likely to leave us with an old officer corps, much like many armies around the world, where promotions stagnate with concomitant negative impact on readiness, retention, and recruitment. On the non-reduction in GO numbers.,..cutting the force structure by 15% would logically lead to a 15% reduction at all ranks. What we've seen is a reduction at the major level and below, including all enlisted ranks, and very extremely limited reductions at ltc and above.
Also, on the performance point, even in the osbs we saw officers with no bad paper and a preponderance of ACOMs cut; with a promotion rate less than 50%, we'll be letting really quality officers go and keeping their slightly older peers who got promoted inboards with rates around 90%. I understand year group management is a legal requirement; I just think the Army isn't doing itself any favors by excluding YG 97 and earlier from a hard look.
Also, on the performance point, even in the osbs we saw officers with no bad paper and a preponderance of ACOMs cut; with a promotion rate less than 50%, we'll be letting really quality officers go and keeping their slightly older peers who got promoted inboards with rates around 90%. I understand year group management is a legal requirement; I just think the Army isn't doing itself any favors by excluding YG 97 and earlier from a hard look.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
MAJ (Join to see)
Good points, thanks. I was aware of the single-tracking, as it occurred before I retired in 2000, however, it would have been better to establish a FAO branch, like Aviation and Special Operations did. I served on battalion command and LTC promotion boards in the late 90's and I can tell you that FAOs took some hits because of lack of "branch qualification". Although they may be single-tracked, they are still in a branch and that creates an expectation of branch qualification. In a promotion board process, when board members are reviewing thousands of records, only a few minutes are spent with each. As such, when you see a photo and file of an Infantry officer, for example, and do a quick review of OERS, assignments, schools, etc., your brain automatically compares him to other Infantry officers. Hopefully, the system has matured to the point that is no longer an issue. From the info you provided about recent selection rates, it appears that it might have corrected itself.
I understand your comments about the force structure and how the "culling" is being done. Like I said, we have been through this before and we'll get through it. Unfortunately, we will lose some very good officers in the process.
Good points, thanks. I was aware of the single-tracking, as it occurred before I retired in 2000, however, it would have been better to establish a FAO branch, like Aviation and Special Operations did. I served on battalion command and LTC promotion boards in the late 90's and I can tell you that FAOs took some hits because of lack of "branch qualification". Although they may be single-tracked, they are still in a branch and that creates an expectation of branch qualification. In a promotion board process, when board members are reviewing thousands of records, only a few minutes are spent with each. As such, when you see a photo and file of an Infantry officer, for example, and do a quick review of OERS, assignments, schools, etc., your brain automatically compares him to other Infantry officers. Hopefully, the system has matured to the point that is no longer an issue. From the info you provided about recent selection rates, it appears that it might have corrected itself.
I understand your comments about the force structure and how the "culling" is being done. Like I said, we have been through this before and we'll get through it. Unfortunately, we will lose some very good officers in the process.
(3)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
I saw some very good people leave the military as a result of the various drawdowns. Like I have said for years, the military will never be horny, because we are always screwing ourselves.
(5)
(0)
8
8
0
When I was Commissioned in 1992, the drawdown from Desert Storm was near an end. The Army took the minimal number of 2LTs on Active Duty, the Reserves, and the Guard. Promotion rates in the ranks were not high at this time. I remember a Battalion Commander telling me in 1995 that at that time to consider making it to MAJ as career success because promotion rates were that low. 50% is not low considering the military is in the midst of a drawdown from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Part of the reason why you saw high promotion rates were a second order effect from the previous drawdown before OEF/OIF. There were significant shortages in officers from year groups 1991-1994 because the Army only Commissioned the bare minimum required in each of those years. They didn't take in to account that a lot of officers in those year groups elected to get out after their initial term was up or prior to the 10 year mark. It resulted in shortages in my year group throughout my time in the military. Promotion rates were high because of this. They went higher because we increased the size of the Army to be able to keep up with the manning requirements to support OIF/OEF.
The promotion rates go in cycles. At some point they will go up again because the Army will cut numbers and as a result of this additional officers will get out along the way because we have a history of doing "more with less people" and at some point some Soldiers will say enough is enough and get out rather than stay in during declining morale and being asked to do more and more work. It's happened during the 1990's and it'll happen again.
This is not about getting rid of officers with combat experience, it's a simple numbers game to get down to the approved strength. While the intent is to focus on those who have derogatory information in their files, PT failures, overweight, etc.; good people will be put out as well along the way. I lost some very good SPCs in my first unit because they had hit the 8 year mark and couldn't get promoted because the promotion points were at the max level for their MOS. I hated to see them go, but the points were not dropping below 798 and these guys had done everything they could to get points and still couldn't achieve the 798. It's a sad reality of drawing down the military, some good people will be put out too.
Part of the reason why you saw high promotion rates were a second order effect from the previous drawdown before OEF/OIF. There were significant shortages in officers from year groups 1991-1994 because the Army only Commissioned the bare minimum required in each of those years. They didn't take in to account that a lot of officers in those year groups elected to get out after their initial term was up or prior to the 10 year mark. It resulted in shortages in my year group throughout my time in the military. Promotion rates were high because of this. They went higher because we increased the size of the Army to be able to keep up with the manning requirements to support OIF/OEF.
The promotion rates go in cycles. At some point they will go up again because the Army will cut numbers and as a result of this additional officers will get out along the way because we have a history of doing "more with less people" and at some point some Soldiers will say enough is enough and get out rather than stay in during declining morale and being asked to do more and more work. It's happened during the 1990's and it'll happen again.
This is not about getting rid of officers with combat experience, it's a simple numbers game to get down to the approved strength. While the intent is to focus on those who have derogatory information in their files, PT failures, overweight, etc.; good people will be put out as well along the way. I lost some very good SPCs in my first unit because they had hit the 8 year mark and couldn't get promoted because the promotion points were at the max level for their MOS. I hated to see them go, but the points were not dropping below 798 and these guys had done everything they could to get points and still couldn't achieve the 798. It's a sad reality of drawing down the military, some good people will be put out too.
(8)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google