What are your thoughts on recommending your/subordinates for promotion (AAA Reports)?

2014-09-25T23:57:56-04:00

What are your thoughts on recommending your/subordinates for promotion (AAA Reports)? Do you use/see personal bias or professionalism behind it? I have personally seen more personal bias than professional when reviewing monthly reports for recommending subordinates for promotion. I have seen in many situations whereas a recommendation of "NO" was given because "They are not ready." From E2 to E3/E3 to E4 and especially E4 to E5? How are they not ready? What are you as a leader/mentor doing to get them ready? And what in the world is a non-recommendation for promotion counseling? I could have sworn that promotion consideration was part of the monthly counseling process anyway, so why is there a separate counseling produced to tell a Soldier why they are not being recommended for promotion or can go to the promotion board? My favorite response in this situation is: "They don't know their job!"... Let's get it in. I look forward to your responses.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2014 8:38 AM

2014-09-26T08:38:01-04:00

SFC Randy Purham, I think you make a good point about recommending troops for promotion. There's obviously no room for personal bias, and at the same time it's hard to take personal bias completely out of the equation. My experience at this level (E2 to E3; E3 to E4; E4 to E5) is quite dated, but we had company boards for those promotions (E2 to E3 and E3 to E4, anyhow) in the 82d back in the day. I would say that for those promotions, if the individual has the required time in grade and is performing satisfactorily, he/she should be recommended for promotion. I'm sure there are exceptions, but as a general rule.

I think there's a difference with the E4 to E5 promotion. There you're asking a Specialist (assuming the individual is not a Corporal) to move from Soldier/follower to NCO/leader. That's a bigger step with a higher bar, in my opinion.

Response by 1SG Chris Brown made Sep 26 at 2014 9:03 AM

2014-09-26T09:03:41-04:00

I have been involved in this process for many years and I think there can be bias just as anywhere, but I think it is a fair process in general. I think the same could be said about bias in just about anything we do. You're a SSG, let's say you have two SGTs you supervise. You consider one to be better than the other, so you give that NCO a better NCOER, perhaps better award, maybe recommend him for a more prestigious additional duty with the unit, etc. Is this bias, are you favoring one over the other? Of course, it’s human nature. But you are doing it because you truly believe one NCO is of higher quality.

When we review the AAA reports, particularly for the junior enlisted promotions, it is often with an eye for which of several is most ready for additional responsibility, especially when waivers are needed. For those in the eligible field (no waivers for TIS, TIG needed), it really is about the Soldier directly and whether he/she is ready. But I agree with you in asking what the leader is doing to prepare the Soldier. If the Soldier is eligible (no waivers) for SPC but you recommend NO, then you better have some really good justification and be able to show where you’ve been trying to mentor and develop them and why they are failing to meet standards. If it’s just because you don’t like the Soldier, that’s not good enough.

As far as NCO promotions (SGT/SSG eligibles), the Army has provided specific timelines for promotions that we must consider. If the Soldier is eligible in the primary zone, then we need to get them to a promotion board or show definitively why he/she is not ready and the steps we as the leadership are taking to mentor them so they are ready in the coming months. If all we are doing is saying NO and not truly developing the Soldier, then we are failing as leaders to the individual and to our organization that looks to the NCO leadership to mentor the junior enlisted and junior NCOs. If an NCO is unsure of their duty in this regard, I’d suggest they go back and read the NCO Creed again. You question about doing double counseling is a good one. Why do we need to monthly counsel a SPC on performance and then give a special counseling every month when we tell them they are in the primary zone but we are not sending them to the board? I think that’s just a result of our deficiency in properly counseling Soldiers over the years. AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), para 1-26, actually requires the counseling but states you just have to do it once initially, then every three months after that for all Soldiers eligible for PV2 through SSG without waiver.

Ultimately, you can’t take all bias out of a system that humans control. But that’s OK as I think the system works pretty good personally as long as we are all doing our jobs.

Response by SSG Thomas Lovins made Oct 1 at 2014 1:09 PM

2014-10-01T13:09:00-04:00

I too see how personal bias can come into play when recommending someone for promotion but who would know better than the person that sees them every day and knows them. For instance, I have a SPC who is (outside of the shop) for all intense purposes an outstanding Soldier. Won bronze in the German Armed Proficiency Badge competition, never scores below a 250 on his APFT, is a member of the Funeral Detail Honor Guard. But I see him every day and I see someone who frustrates easily, gets overwhelmed and angry quickly, at times can't handle the simplest task due to his emotions and immaturity, and couldn't fix a vehicle to save his life. I've been working with his squad leader to develop him in all aspects of his professional and personal life but so far without much ground gained. My last ditch effort with him as I leave the military is to put him in a leadership position with support from above to see how he performs supervising. I know some people just aren't good mechanics but if I could at least get him to be a good supervisor I would consider it a win in my books.