Posted on Apr 11, 2014
Should Soldiers (E-1 to E-3) be automatically promoted?
15.9K
19
8
0
0
0
It seems like performance and values matter less now. Soldiers feel like they are entitled to promotions, awards, and pretty much anything. Should Soldiers be guaranteed promotion after a certain time? I understand that we still check either yes or no but it seems that nowadays Soldiers can complain and get what they want. There is no pride in achieving the next rank. I also understand that lower enlisted ranks requires less strict evaluations but Soldiers seem to be taking advantage of the system and many still get promoted without being ready or even deserving.
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Enlisted
Promotions Enlisted
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
Although "advancements" to PV2, PFC, and SPC are considered automatic . . . the Soldiers do have to "earn" them by passing the APFT, meeting height/weight standards, and staying out of trouble. Even upon doing so, the Commander still reserves the right to deny the promotion by annotating "no" on the eMILPO reports that are printed by the S-1 on the 1st of each month.
I think the question isn't so much about the promotion system as it should be about the Leaders (NCOs) who should be counseling Soldiers monthly. Deficiencies should be identified. Furthermore, if a Soldier is not recommended for promotion (be it "automatic" or otherwise), they should be counseled accordingly.
I reiterate, the problem is not the system - it is those who do not use it effectively.
On another note, I do feel that the Time in Service and Time in Grade (TIS/TIG) requirements should be adjusted to slow things down.
I think the question isn't so much about the promotion system as it should be about the Leaders (NCOs) who should be counseling Soldiers monthly. Deficiencies should be identified. Furthermore, if a Soldier is not recommended for promotion (be it "automatic" or otherwise), they should be counseled accordingly.
I reiterate, the problem is not the system - it is those who do not use it effectively.
On another note, I do feel that the Time in Service and Time in Grade (TIS/TIG) requirements should be adjusted to slow things down.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
No. I think that they should earn it. They need to meet standards of height/weight, AFPT, and stay out of trouble. This is harder than one of would think. It should not be automatic as one thing that few people factor into this is maturity. Just because you are eligible does not mean that you should be advanced to Specialist. This rank has become more of a leadership rank in some units due to shortages of E-5. And let's not set them up to become an E-5 way before they are ready.
(5)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
I agree with that sentiment, sir. As a recently promoted PFC, I earned early promotion for carrying out the duties of my superiors and would not have it any other way. During my time serving, I've seen a lot of the ranks E-2 to E-4 that lack military bearing and simply dodge duty; that have gotten their rank from programs such as future soldier and stripes for skills and yet think they can get away by pulling stupid stunts. I honestly think rank should be pulled much more often for junior enlisted, or at the very least if there is any question to their promotion it should be held until they prove that they earned it to the discretion of their 1st line leaders as well as their CO and 1SG. While I understand such disciplinary actions such as extra duty are meant to correct their actions, I strongly believe it would be better enforced if rank was put into play. You earn the rank, it is not given. They would think twice of screwing up or attempting to circumvent duty or pull other stupid things like that. Responsibility must be taken, as it is a part of wearing the uniform.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
I feel very strongly on this as I have seen soldiers be placed on extra duty for doing very stupid things then a week later getting promoted (Positive reinforcement for a negative action?).
EACH promotion in the military should be based on MERIT and ability/capability to lead.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google