Retention
QMP
Drawdown
SSG
SFC
Responses: 33
3
3
0
If your pending a QMP for separation, the one piece of advice I have for you is to go do a MEB, especially if you have some issues related to service. If you have Soldiers that are going to take your slots through an MEB, then so be it. Soldiers have given valuable time to the service in, what is typically their best years for employment and education, so why not let them sit on your books a bit longer to have something to separate with.
You have to look at the big picture of the Soldier, and not forget about the families and the individual.
Remember these could be the nay-sayers when the recruiters hit the ground for the next wars.
You have to look at the big picture of the Soldier, and not forget about the families and the individual.
Remember these could be the nay-sayers when the recruiters hit the ground for the next wars.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
My last reserve unit has an E-7 in it who's been an E-7 for a LONG time. I joined that unit in 2004 as an E-4 and he was an E-7 then. QMP is 100% necessary and I hope it is applied to the guard and reserve as well. These squatters are holding up slots and it is VERY annoying. It's probably a HUGE reason why I can't make E-7!!!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Start at the top and work your way down for QMP, how many seniors are out there with no hope of advancement. In my career field we have no CSMs just SGMs and we have 9 of them and only 5 allocated slots. Uh
(3)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
CW3 Kevin Storm - I completely agree, but it'll never happen. It's just not politically correct. With the trend of zero defects and increasing micromanaging, the senior slots will only increase. I've always been amazed at the WWII era General to Soldier ratio versus that of today.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree that we should at some point examine our senior officer and NCO ranks for targeted involuntary separation. For general officers--as there are just so many of them now--turnover is pretty quick, and essentially for each general officer, a screening happens every three years (if a general/admiral doesn't get promoted within three years or selected for another job at the same rank, they retire). I think--although I'm not positive--that the same process exists for CSMs (and their senior NCO counterparts in the other Services.)
Where I believe we could do some solid investigation into involuntary separation is at the E-7/E-8/SGM level, and at the O-5/O-6 level. With RCP and MRDs extending for a very long time, its possible for folks to just hang out. The Army has looked at O-5s and O-6s for SERBs, but to this point has only cut a handful of folks (about 250, by last count, which is a handful compared to the overall population). For LTCs, MRD is 28 years. Most folks who make LTC pin on at 15 or 16 years of service--if they don't get promoted, they can just hang out for 12 or 13 years. That's too long. Most folks pin on COL at 22-24 years--they then can hang out for 8-10 years before MRD at 30. That is too long, too. I'm not saying that these senior officers aren't value added--a 30-year colonel can be a good to great officer (not superb, though--superb colonels get promoted to GO). A 28-yr LTC can be a good officer (not great or superb, though--these types make colonel). Keeping these folks around to MRD results in reduced promotion rates---so we've gutted our younger year groups to hold onto older folks who were promoted to LTC at rates of 100% or more and to COL at all-time high rates, too. Until we change the up-and-out system, we need to look harder at cutting the lowest performers at LTC and COL ranks to allow room for younger (potentially more qualified) folks to move up.
In my MOS, for example, we have something like 160% of the colonels we need to fill colonel billets, yet we are understrength on LTC and majors. So, promotion rates to COL are quite low (as are promotion rates to LTC, somehow, even though we're short LTCs). I've seen articles that discuss lowering MRD for O-5 and O-6; in a drawdown, this could be a good tool.
I'd guess that a similar issue exists for E7/E8/E9, but don't have anecdotes or data.
Where I believe we could do some solid investigation into involuntary separation is at the E-7/E-8/SGM level, and at the O-5/O-6 level. With RCP and MRDs extending for a very long time, its possible for folks to just hang out. The Army has looked at O-5s and O-6s for SERBs, but to this point has only cut a handful of folks (about 250, by last count, which is a handful compared to the overall population). For LTCs, MRD is 28 years. Most folks who make LTC pin on at 15 or 16 years of service--if they don't get promoted, they can just hang out for 12 or 13 years. That's too long. Most folks pin on COL at 22-24 years--they then can hang out for 8-10 years before MRD at 30. That is too long, too. I'm not saying that these senior officers aren't value added--a 30-year colonel can be a good to great officer (not superb, though--superb colonels get promoted to GO). A 28-yr LTC can be a good officer (not great or superb, though--these types make colonel). Keeping these folks around to MRD results in reduced promotion rates---so we've gutted our younger year groups to hold onto older folks who were promoted to LTC at rates of 100% or more and to COL at all-time high rates, too. Until we change the up-and-out system, we need to look harder at cutting the lowest performers at LTC and COL ranks to allow room for younger (potentially more qualified) folks to move up.
In my MOS, for example, we have something like 160% of the colonels we need to fill colonel billets, yet we are understrength on LTC and majors. So, promotion rates to COL are quite low (as are promotion rates to LTC, somehow, even though we're short LTCs). I've seen articles that discuss lowering MRD for O-5 and O-6; in a drawdown, this could be a good tool.
I'd guess that a similar issue exists for E7/E8/E9, but don't have anecdotes or data.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
MAJ (Join to see) - I learned something from working with the German Army for two tours, there system an officer can ask to stay at company level. Kind of like a Senior Captain. They may have multiple Company Commands, same for LT's. It is a very effective system. Up or out doesn't always give you the best results.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CW3 Kevin Storm Agreed, great anecdote. Up or out does work sometimes, though--do we really want 55-year old captains holding down a slot that prevents us from recruiting and assessing new officers? This is what happens in a lot of countries without an up or out system. Lots of countries have "in and stay in" systems where once you become an officer, its up to you to decide to leave. This leads to rank stagnation---ie, folks serving at each rank for a decade or more. That's not ideal, either.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Sounds like the Armies way of drawing down. The sad part about it many NCO's that are real close to retirement might get caught up in this and leave the Army with no benefits!
(3)
(0)
SSG Ryan Moore
SSG Audwin Scott Unfortunately, I may be one of those ones as I'm not really enjoying the fact that I may be let go without much after giving 17 1/2 years of my life.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
By regulation, if you have17y 9m TIS by the time the QMP result notifications come out, your good to stay till 20.....I will have 17y 7m....my answer to this would be too personal.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Continue to submit your request to stay in, all Soldiers have an opportunity to fight for their career.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I know the Army isn't doing this on a case by case situation, but I feel like they should.
Sometimes the NCO's that look good on paper are that way because they're looking out for themselves and no one else; sometimes NCO's that look bad on paper are that way because they choose common sense and welfare of their soldiers over blanketed regs and rules.
Of course that isn't always the case, but I see the system working the opposite way it should in some cases. I don't have a fix action though, so I guess it's all we've got for the moment.
Sometimes the NCO's that look good on paper are that way because they're looking out for themselves and no one else; sometimes NCO's that look bad on paper are that way because they choose common sense and welfare of their soldiers over blanketed regs and rules.
Of course that isn't always the case, but I see the system working the opposite way it should in some cases. I don't have a fix action though, so I guess it's all we've got for the moment.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I believe that as seniors we should have to convince a board every two years why we should be retained. Those 'interviews' should start as soon as you're promoted into the senior ranks. We are serving at the will of the American people, and their expectation should be that they get the best their money can buy. If every two years we have to compete for our jobs (not unprecedented...the active National Guard has a board every three years) then perhaps people will be motivated to perform at a higher level. There are too many seniors preaching one thing, and practicing another.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This is definitely a question has multiple answers and aproaches that will all lead to the same conclusion. I say yes and no
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes it is I think it should start at 5 yrs because this is a profession and a job this is a life not at way of life
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think it sucks, but we all knew when we signed up that we could not do this job eternally and it has to come to an end. I think it's reasonable and it's not like you are being tossed out to the street with zero options. The bottom line if you were successful and good at your job in uniform you should not have a problem achieving the same success out of uniform.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I totally agree with you. Resiliency, we are probably the most resilient force that can achieve anything.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google