Why does the Senate intervene in the military promotion process?

2016-02-06T10:28:30-05:00

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/02/05/key-senators-urge-navy-to-block-promotion-for-admiral-in-charge-of-special-operations/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_check

Leaders of Senate Armed Services Committee urge Navy to torpedo promotion of Special Ops...

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sent a joint letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus last month saying they had "deep reservations" about a pending promotion for Rear Adm. Brian K. Losey.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Feb 6 at 2016 10:32 AM

2016-02-06T10:32:20-05:00

Intervening? As Long as I can remember the US Congress was charged with Officer Selection and Promotion. Being a Naval Communicator I remember being tasked with Handling the Messages and the Confidentiality until they were notified of their promotion. I remember the Cap't that had very Minimal Involvement in Tail Hook but Plenty in Congress though would not forget who he was and made him a Forced Retirement due to lack of Advancement.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2016 10:34 AM

2016-02-06T10:34:55-05:00

SASC is part of the process.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Feb 6 at 2016 10:35 AM

2016-02-06T10:35:49-05:00

That has to one our oldest laws tasking the Congress and more actively the US Senate with the duty of Officer Promotions. If you are a Military Officer, Like It or Not. You are part of the Political Process. If you are a Military Officer and not a "Politician" at least to some small degree, I have little hope for your Survival.

Response by Sgt Mike Williams made Feb 6 at 2016 10:40 AM

2016-02-06T10:40:39-05:00

Let me rephrase- Do you agree with Senate blocking this particular officer's promotion?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 6 at 2016 10:45 AM

2016-02-06T10:45:47-05:00

Can't understand why.
"As a result, the Navy was forced to delay Losey’s promotion until the inspector general could complete its investigations, which lasted for years and involved more than 100 witnesses and 300,000 pages of e-mails. In the end, three of the five complaints were upheld by the inspector general."

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 6 at 2016 10:54 AM

2016-02-06T10:54:25-05:00

It's interesting that the Navy wants to promote and keep a Flag who's a lightning rod, justly or unjustly. Now it's a matter of where is the "how bad" factor. When it comes to politics, politics always wins, especially since the law requires a political body's approval. Unless the Navy has the chops to have private meetings with the concerned Senators to demonstrate compelling need, etc. I suspect the "review" will result in withdrawing the promotion with a subsequent retirement. Even if there is compelling need for the Navy, there isn't compelling need for politicals who have their own enemies to deal with. Perception is everything. Unlike Patton and Rickover, he's probably 40 years too late with his style.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Feb 6 at 2016 11:14 AM

2016-02-06T11:14:52-05:00

Sgt Mike Williams the only thing I can make out is good order and discipline, who knows.

Response by PO2 Todd Voge made Feb 6 at 2016 11:42 AM

2016-02-06T11:42:02-05:00

I believe it is right that this happens (even though it is the law). The military answers to the Commander-in-Chief, who is a civilian elected by the people. The Congress (House and Senate) are tasked with oversight of the President and hence the military. It is one of the many checks/balances in place to maintain good order and discipline in the nation.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Feb 6 at 2016 11:47 AM

2016-02-06T11:47:28-05:00

Why do politicians act like politicians? Who knows?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2016 11:57 AM

2016-02-06T11:57:08-05:00

The constitution says so.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 6 at 2016 12:09 PM

2016-02-06T12:09:23-05:00

It is the law. I do not think the holding of board results for ransom, tinkering with individual officers, or other shenanigans were I visioned under the 1947 and 1980 acts. This is what brought us up or out as opposed to the stagnant cronyism prior to that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Officer_Personnel_Management_Act

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) (Pub.L. 96–513) is a United States federal law passed in 1980 that for the first time standardized officer personnel management across the United States Armed Forces. DOPMA established ceilings on the number of field grade officers authorized to each service, created uniform regulations governing promotions, and codified rules regarding separation and retirement of officers.[1]

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2016 12:19 PM

2016-02-06T12:19:44-05:00

I believe it is Article II, Section 2 and 3

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Feb 6 at 2016 12:48 PM

2016-02-06T12:48:47-05:00

Simple, because they can.

Response by COL David Turk made Feb 6 at 2016 1:39 PM

2016-02-06T13:39:57-05:00

Because they can. Since the Senate confirms appointments and promotions, that gives them power (leverage) over the services. Sometime they use it wisely, and sometimes it's pure politics.

Response by LtCol Mac McCarty made Feb 6 at 2016 2:37 PM

2016-02-06T14:37:41-05:00

The simple answer is that the Senate (not the entire Congress) has a constitutional obligation to do so. Every commissioned officer is appointed by the President, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Most promotion lists are reviewed in the Senate Armed Services Committee, approved by the Committee, and then approved in the Senate by unanimous. General and Flag Officer promotions get the full treatment. RAdm Losey is nowhere the first officer appointment to be questioned--many have even been disapproved--by the Senate, and he won't be the last. Just another of those little Constitutional tidbits that even most lawyers don't know.

I was a Major when I was admitted to the Bar for the first time, the background check form asked "Have you ever been elected or appointed to public office and if so, by whom?" I responded "Yes, by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate." That prompted a telephone call from an attorney at the Attorney Registration Office at the Illinois Supreme Court.
Attorney: "You're a presidential appointee?"
Me: "Yup."
A: "What office or position?"
M: "I'm a Major in the United States Marine Corps."
A: "Yeah, yeah, we noticed that, that's OK, but to what office did the President appoint you?"
M: "Second Lieutenant of Marines, First Lieutenant of Marines, Captain of Marines, and Major of Marines."
A: (Looooong pause) "I don't understand. You said you were appointed to office by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. What office?"
M: (Now tired of playing who's on first with this idiot) "OK. Let me read you my commission. (I did.) Are we OK now?"
A: "Geez, I never knew that. The next time I teach Con Law at the UofI Law school, I'm gonna use that as a trick question!"

Response by MAJ R. Andrew Hoskinson made Feb 6 at 2016 3:01 PM

2016-02-06T15:01:22-05:00

It gives them leverage in dealing with the administration, especially the SecDef and the service heads.

Response by SPC James Dollins made Feb 6 at 2016 5:50 PM

2016-02-06T17:50:53-05:00

I say that since the IG found merit in some of the complaints, his promotion should be withheld. The Senate gets involved because they have 'Oversight' over the military wether we like it or not. Also w/ an IG report, it goes all the way to the top leaders, who are also civilians who report to the oversight committee. Being that high in rank, there is no way to get around the civilian leadership not knowing what's going on.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Feb 7 at 2016 11:20 AM

2016-02-07T11:20:14-05:00

Because they have that authority, and anyone that Obama picks, the GOP is torpedoing...

Response by PO2 Riva Norris made Feb 7 at 2016 1:12 PM

2016-02-07T13:12:44-05:00

It seems they intervene too much into things that we don't need them too and where they are much needed they're a bit church mouse-ish

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Feb 12 at 2016 9:22 PM

2016-02-12T21:22:25-05:00

I don't know all the nuts and bolts about how officers are appointed, by Congress I believe, but their public presence is more known and felt as they go up the ranks., so by virtue of being appointed by Congress and thus by the President they need to be vetted more thoroughly. I noticed though that the more senior an officer becomes the more political they seem to become.
I believe that the US Navy Chief Petty Officers list is also approved by Congress and they are appointed to that rank so that's why a Navy Chief cannot simply be reduced in rank by a Commanding Officer, it takes a Court Martial to demote a CPO.

Response by PO1 Matthew Simkovsky made Feb 23 at 2016 10:07 AM

2016-02-23T10:07:17-05:00

Simple... Officers are appointed by POTUS... Any nominations for appointments (initial or to next higher pay grade) by POTUS need to be confirmed/approved by the Senate.