Do you feel enlisted promotions (E4 to E6) should be based on performance alone and not a board?

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 04:52:04 -0400

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 5:11 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 05:11:02 -0400

Despite the fact boards are no ones favorite thing to prepare for or go through, they do present a valuable assessment and training tool for leadership. After all, job performance alone does not determine what makes a soldier successful. Please check out the newly published ADRP 1, specifically the 3 Cs (Performance alone will only give you one of them).

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jul 9 at 2015 7:21 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 07:21:32 -0400

Care to elaborate, SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member?

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 9 at 2015 7:40 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 07:40:04 -0400

I think boards, while not the funniest thing in the world, play a critical role in the Army's promotion structure. We have talked plenty of times here on RallyPoint about performance based boards and the standards and everything that falls into this realm and while I agree, performance is way more important than your ability to sit down and memorize answers from a book, the board is the senior leaders' chance to see how the candidate for promotion reacts to stress in a face to face environment. It shows that the candidate is able to pay attention to detail by taking the time to ensure his/her uniform is on point and how well the candidate presents him/herself. These are all critical things when you are looking at taking on these entry level leadership roles.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 9:48 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:48:49 -0400

Boards suck. There is no doubt about it. But think of it this way. Boards put Soldiers in a very alien and possibly uncomfortable situation where they may have to think quickly on their feet (depending on how devious the board members can be with questions). These are the same aspects that leaders need to have. Going from never having been in charge, to being in charge, can be very alien and uncomfortable to a brand new promoted leader.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 12:27 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:27:33 -0400

Considering that we already have a problem with over-inflati..., I mean enthusiastically rating every NCO we rate as the cream of the crop, I do not see a black and white solution being very effective in promoting those with the true potential to proceed to the next level. It is not practical to do this with all grades or I would love to see all SSG/SFC/MSG in the zone go TDY to participate in a board much like the SGT and SSG boards.
You get a chance to see the person and talk to the person rather than read a file and a photograph. You get to use your gut. You can have them problem solve and hypothetically lead troops through dialog.
My E5 board took an hour. I had the Army Service Ribbon and that was it. (It was hard to get an award in 96-98 in 123d SIG). I scored 197, the highest for the day. My packet would never had articulated my abilities and accomplishments because all I had was a rifle score, PT score, some college and no awards or schools.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 2:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:00:55 -0400

I do think that a promotion should be base on your performance. There is to many dumb people that can make it in the board but there knowledge it's very poor. I will like to have an NCO that actually knows their job or it's a good example than a dumb guy that just made it cause they like how he look that day in front of a promotion board.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 2:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:41:03 -0400

Why are we STILL, the only branch that values the ability to memorize facts over knowing how to do there JOB? For all those that feel boards are necessary.... I have a Soldier for whom I could not feel prouder of. He has won numerous boards, and has achieved many great accolades for all HIS achievements. I am concerned, however, on how his job performance may lack due to train ups, and future schooling he may receive. Now, will he makes his E-5 with in 3 years, I bet my life he will. Does that make him ready for it? I agree that boards have its place, but not in the areas where promotion stand. If I had a photographic memory (which does exist), and I spit things out, I'm the greatest thing since slice cheese, until paper hits the sand. Let's judge by example. Seeing is Believing.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 3:58 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:58:50 -0400

I am a E4 in the Army, i think the board should be based off the MOS that the soldier is. So if a 92F it should mainly be about being a Petroleum Supply Specialist. And how much that soldier knows of his/her job, part on performance.
If he/she shows potential to be a leader or is in a leadership position. That should be the bases on sending a soldier to the board or being promoted above E3. I know some are going to be upset by this but. The current boards are jokes, they only promote (or make promotable)
The ones they like screw everyone else. So many soldiers are over looked for promotion. Soldiers dont get counseled correctly. Becthe current chains of command. Only look out for them and the soldiers that are in the same MOS as the 1SG, or CSM. I have seen this in all 4 of the units i have been in.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 6:12 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:12:18 -0400

Honestly, I think that performance alone isn't enough. The board itself needs to be redone. You're looking for competent and moral people. How can you find ethics from answering questions from ADPs? I think it should be more of an interview with scenarios and ambiguous questions. It wouldn't be much of what you said, but how you said it, and your thinking process. Then leaders can actually go through counselings (of 6 months) and see what you as a soldier have accomplished within that time. A soldier can then be dynamically evaluated with questions that require critical thinking and precise responses. This, I think, will be a more personal board.
I also think that there should be some practicality; knowing forms, drill and ceremony, weapons, safety, etc. Things that can influence a soldier's life directly or almost directly.

I am biased, I'm not fond of learning history. Sure, I am to take pride in the soldiers who fought and gave up their lives so that our generation can follow them in their footsteps. I'm not going to disrespect them or the uniform, but basic things like major wars, Deceleration of Independence, etc should be know by soldiers. Things immigrants must learn to be US citizens should be something every soldier in America should already know.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 6:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:24:48 -0400

I think that the promotion process should be two fold. A traditional board like we currently have and either another board or a test for you MOS skill set. We are constantly being tested on our Warrior Tasks and Drills, so why not our MOS related skills. This way, when your soldier asks you how to perform a MOS related task you can instruct them on how to do it rather than telling them to read a book. I have seen and experienced this in my MOS (68A - Biomedical Equipment Repair).

What it really comes down to, in my opinion, is that there are those types of Soldiers that want the pay that comes with the rank rather than the increased responsibility and privileged that comes with it.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jul 14 at 2015 7:47 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:47:33 -0400

I think we should combine the AF method and what we have now.. An MOS test gets you before the board who then decide if you have the right psych skills on top of MOS knowledge to lead.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Jul 14 at 2015 8:25 PM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:25:44 -0400

Performance as well the board.
I also believe that the board is just a way of giving you points based on how you do.
In 90% of the cases I have seen you would not get to the board unless your actual performance warranted it.

We had a saying when I was in.
Field soldiers vs garrison soldiers.

A field soldier is who you wanted in battle. But they did not LOOK as good in garrison.
garrison soldiers look GREAT in garrison but are afraid to do the work and get dirty in the field.

Then there is the exceptional soldier who can pull off both. Usually because he had 2 compete sets of gear. One for each.

The mix was 40/40/20.

Most didn't come into the 20 until after they made E-5

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 9:01 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:01:22 -0400

Absolutely not. Boards help validate those who deserve promotion, but they cannot, of themselves, determine whether or not someone should be promoted. The board process forces candidates to expend additional effort, which helps to prove their motivation.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 9:29 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:29:31 -0400

yes absolutely

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 9:31 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:31:11 -0400

Just from observing the promotions around me and those appointed above me as well, I definitely feel it should be more performance focused while still including the knowledge aspect. Well-rounded soldiers, and people in general, are more valuable.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 9:43 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:43:24 -0400

E4-E6 should be based on Leadership and the ability to care out the mission. Boards do not allows allow the members to see the caliber leader in a Soldier.

Response by SPC Todd Hanson made Jul 14 at 2015 9:59 PM

SPC Todd Hanson — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:59:05 -0400

I would say keep the board but add in a MOS proficiently test as well.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 10:01 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:01:23 -0400

Well, I am in retired and served in the Army and Navy. I think that promotion should be based at least half on performance and MOS knowledge. The person with the high PT score and shooting 40 out of 40 on the range is not a good reason to promote someone. The Army should have a writing test for promotion also.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 11:17 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 23:17:01 -0400

Technically, it is based on your performance. If your leadership continuously evaluates you every day, good leadership, then the promotion board shows higher command that the solider is ready to be promoted.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 7:04 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:04:15 -0400

I believe that all promotions (E-1 to E-6) should be based on merit and your knowledge of your job. How the army does promotions right now makes no sense to me- especially promotion points why does a infantry soldier not need to have so many correspondence courses as a supply soldier or a MI soldier? We need to start from scratch.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 10:32 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:32:42 -0400

Coming from the National Guard, I firmly believe that the promotion board is necessary to ensure that everyone is examined throughly for promotions for E5 and E6. Is the process for getting paper work long, tough and frustrating at times? Yes, yes it is. That being said, promotions within the NCO ranks are limited and competitive. Without the board process, commanders risk promoting based on favoritism as opposed to qualifications. The board process ensures that not only are NCOs effective at their duties, but that they are capable leaders. As far as MOS proficiency, the board response to that is NCOES completion. Are there a few that slip through because of paper boards? Yes, probably. I like that a board promotion incorporates leaders from multiple organizations to evaluate NCOs. Anyone can reach TIS/TIG, but the board forces soldiers to compete.

Response by SPC Jeramie Hinsinger made Jul 15 at 2015 10:56 AM

SPC Jeramie Hinsinger — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:56:08 -0400

Absolutely! I see too many Soldiers cram for boards and forget everything by the time the actually obtain their promotion. Soldiers that memorize answers but can not even fathom time management or task organization. Promotion boards are out dated by standard and need to be revamped entirely.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 11:11 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:11:26 -0400

I definitely see the pros and cons of promotions. Just about anyone can cram only to later brain dump all that information after a single beer. It does take you out of your comfort zone and forces you to speak to rank you would otherwise avoid. Due to reclassing I have been an SPC for a little longer than I would like but I have seen all kinds of garbage from every rank in existence. They all got by some board at some point in their career and it was not effective at weeding out poor leadership. I genuinely have no solution, just an observation. It hard to fix an organization that has done ok; it's technically not broken so why fix it kind of things is what I'd imagine people saying.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 15 at 2015 11:22 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:22:45 -0400

Depends on the quality of the board. Some units make an event of it. A week or two of ruck marches, ranges, APFT's, Soldier task stations obstacle courses, etc... followed by the formal board on the last day. Those boards are great. Most units unfortunately, just have a one day event, you go in, sing a song or two, yell a creed real loud, answer a few questions, and your done. Those are the boards that give boards a bad name.... Sadly they are also the most common...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 12:56 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:56:49 -0400

my only concern is that some close nit NCO boards may have vendetta's or other personal reasons not to promote someone, or they may be overlooked in a larger community, or they may even promote someone based on connection and not soldiers capabilities. I think that promotions should be based on performance and time in grade by experience.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 10:39 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:39:06 -0400

i believe that although knowing how to perform should be the deciding factor, there is more to it than only that. As a leader you have to be technically and tactically proficient. Any E-5 or E-6 maybe even an E-4 in a team leader position can tell you its more than just being able to do the job, you also have to be able to teach it and guide other soldiers, while knowing the ADRP/ADP/FM/AR/DA side of it also.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 9:53 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:53:11 -0400

The borads have nothing to do with the ability to lead. I saw it too many times when I was in. They would promote a shit bag E4 because he maxed out his correspondence courses and could say the right shit at the board. Then when a detail or a misson would come up and SPC with more sense would be in charge. So then that same shit bag would get another promotion and that how you end up with worthless CSM's.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 1:46 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 01:46:37 -0400

I am not fond of the promotion boards. I have been excluded from the boards for some reg or good ol' boy reason. I only wish I could have been able to have my former first sergeant fulfill his promise to promote me to sergeant.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 9:19 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:19:23 -0400

This is an interesting question. Boards are there to do exactly that, assess performance. That said the Navy uses exams in conjunction with points from awards, evaluations, etc. and it seems to work ok.

As a counter to what a few have said about the TIS promotions. The reason that E1-E2 and O1-O2 etc are primarily time based is so that new service members can focus on learning their job and working as a team rather than competing with others. I understand the opinion that more should be evaluated, but there are ways to stop a sub-par Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine from promoting. As several have said it is a failure on leadership when those who shouldn't be promoted are.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 7:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:24:04 -0400

While i agree that performance plays a key factor, I feel that the board is important as well. Soldiers transitioning to become an NCO should of course have an understanding of army values and history. But my main issue with this is the fact that they are only reviewed when that soldier is told that he/she is going to the promotion board -after passing its out the window. I also feel that a soldier should be able to be considered promotable by his/her leadership skills. I have many soldiers that would refer to me before an NCO and i see others that have soldiers trusting their specialists. However with that respect, i see the specialists who are NOT looked at a leader -promotable because they hang out, or know their leaders, or their NCO's "jive" well with them, and so they are recommended for a promotion board, while other soldiers who are left behind because they're not reviewed fairly, and have a bias when reviewed.

If i were to make a recommendation I would say have a group of serious NCO's review soldiers on a weekly basis at a battalion basis review the performances of what they see from soldiers. Those soldiers which are being seen as a leader and know their jobs well would be pulled aside to be reviewed with their knowledge of army history, or various basic understandings of the army standards or "basic soldiering fundamentals" (as my NCO calls it.) Those soldiers depending on their performance would then be refereed to the monthly promotion board. In doing it this way, all soldiers are placed on a fair grounds and performance integrity.