Officer separations... race vs reality.

The numbers given are misleading. Percentages based on an assumed common sized pie but are really based on other numbers cause all sorts of misunderstandings. Then again - most graphs and numbers used are specific to target and often not based on a common factor. If you read the article you will understand. Numbers don't lie - but the slant on the commentary and the intent of the commentary often do, if not outright then with innuendo and interpretation.

Sir, If I get let go then I can only honestly blame myself for coming up short and thanking the Army for the great opportunity to have served. Everyone now has to be competitive to stay in if they want to get to the next rank. I still say that what you put into the Army is what you get out of it. With the Army downsizing, every officer knows that positions are going away and only the best leaders with potential to serve will remain to take charge. I'm just going to take it day-by-day and do my best to lead as always. That is what they told us at MCCC this year. Don't worry about the board but worry about what you can control to the best of your abilities.

Four schools of thought this can take. Either:

A) Whites are outperforming blacks, therefore have better records.

B) Blacks are underperforming, therefore their records make them more vulnerable to separation.

C) Races make up different percentages of different career fields, each of which are more or less vulnerable than others because they are under/over strength.

D) There's a conspiracy!

I vote for C personally..

MAJ I'd like to see the total numbers on this. I would like to see these numbers stratified into the branches and then see if there is a correlation based on the the RIF. It could be that there are just more black MAJ's in Infantry than lets say Armor and the Army and DoD are cutting the legs instead of the ass. Thus it may look disproportionate but for what every reason maybe more MAJ's are just black in the infantry. I'd like to drill down on this one before saying the Army is racist. Last time I checked we where all green. However I do agree with you sir that from the surface it does look slanted. Just remember 60% of all statistics prove nothing.

Have no doubt the media is spinning this! Supposedly of those cut, about 80% had negative evaluations. But of course, the media cares nothing about "correlation" or "causation". Because adding those terms into the mix could potentially mitigate the sensationalism.

Looking over the article and trough the links that were listed...there is a lot of information that has been left out. The article does appear to be written in a way to persuade people of prejudge in the military.

However, the article did mention that most of the officers being relieved had bad marks on their OER. One of the links went on to show "the percentage of Active Duty members who have a Bachelor’s and/or an advanced degree has decreased for officers (from 89.6% in 1995 to 82.4% in 2012)" if the junior officer does not obtain a Bachelors degree within a certain time they should never make it to CPT - but in the event they did of course they would be on the chopping block.

As far as race ... (according to militaryone source study) in 2012 only 21.9% of officers were classified as a minority. So out of that % it would not make since that 23% of minorities were relieved of service. The article is not clear what they are basing their percentages on.

To add to my concern about the validity of the article, the associate editor for Military.com, Brendan McGarry is a defense reporter. All his articles about the military are controversial subjects. His articles appear to stir up a debate.

I have to agree with CPT Swartout, our careers are our own doing or undoing. What is put into our evaluations are (should be) a reflection of what we have contributed to the unit and the Army. If we fail to be beneficial then we (as an individual) should accept our short-comings and be prepared to find another line of work.

MAJ (Join to see), I read through three different slide shows. One was about 20 slides, the other that was about 60-70 that had the Korea info, and the 2013 HRC OPD. I am an OTHER (white/black). Here are my thoughts on it:

* Race may appear to be a limited factor
* Misconduct/Negative OER evaluations was the biggest issue
* Outdated photos and records was an issue
* Having block check OERs caused problems.
* Lack of KD jobs
* Deployed personnel were more likely to be separated. I think this can be a combination of stress and having a tougher OER due to the demands of deployments.
* OCS personnel were more likely to be separated.

It is a hot topic, but I believe the Army was fair enough where race was not the issue. I was amazed by how much detail there was in regards to the slide shows. I know the Army would not entertain this, but the only way to see if race was the issue, they would have reverify the OERs and files of those not separated and see if they were treated in the same manner. Again Sir, I believe race is not the case. I think it could be problematic if every separation board was like this for multiple years. If so, then they would have to bring in people who are trained in statistics to explain the trends, backgrounds, and etc of why this would be occurring.

Part of the problems with statistics are that they can be skewed. It is critical to know more about these numbers. For example, traditionally there tends to be more white officers in the Infantry and Combat Arms versus Quartermaster or Personnel where the distribution is different. Then we need to understand where the Department of the Army cuts are being made. Are they effecting more support officer positions?

What would REALLY clear this up is if the human resource command released the specific numbers and data. I know of Officers who have requested as such and been told that the data is confidential and secret which unfortunately lends itself to fanning the conspiracy claims and the guise of unfairness. Officer Billets are Federally funded positions, there should be 100% transparency and publication of ALL the actual numbers without question. That would lead to factual analysis and no speculation.

Some media outlet will always find some statistic to spin so that it comes out the way they want to show it. Once it is aired enough the general public will pick up the issue based of statements made by a biased media, and it will spill onto social media and become a big topic. Because the general population is so gullible and believes everything the media tells them there will be uproar. Examples such as the Ferguson incident, the female hair standards in the new AR 670-1, immigration, the list can be quite long. The only way to prevent these things from becoming an issue is to educate the public. What should really be the point is that people were cut because they were not up to the standard the Army wishes to have

Just send me the address for me to go riot MAJ (Join to see) May I suggest my ex's location?