Posted on Sep 8, 2016
Why is there such a long wait for reserve component officer and warrant federal recognition/promotion?
448K
2.52K
3.17K
137
137
0
Can anyone tell me why the process takes so long for RC officer/warrant promotions to run through the FedRec cycle? I'm an ARNG officer and I've had my state promotion orders for CPT since the middle of April. I've been tracking my packet on the ARNG-G1 website and it was awaiting addition to a scroll until a month ago and last week the scroll was ready to start the approval DoD cycle. Thoughts?
Promotions
Officer
Warrant Officers
Personnel
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 419
0
0
0
Wow! I really didn't think it took that long! It seems to me in my early years in the ARNG it was a couple of months at most.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Sir, this is exactly why a lot of us are in this position. Vacancy promotions were always the gold standard...I missed my board because I was on a scroll. That was last October and I'm still waiting.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Anyone have information on P09-17? It has not moved in 84 days. Hopefully we are not in competition with P03-17...
Scroll created with packets and List_ID; P09-17; 84 Days in DoD Approval cycle
Scroll created with packets and List_ID; P09-17; 84 Days in DoD Approval cycle
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
84 days? Prob still sitting on some GS-7 desk.....229 & counting here....winter is coming....
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Looks like all the scrolls received an update today... 94 days to get to Off Judge Adv General...
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'm on the same list & haven't been able to get my laptop to agree with G1 tracker to check status. Have we moved any closer?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Any info on P09-17... it does not seem to be moving at all. After 84 days it still has the same message as day 1.
Scroll created with packets and List_ID; P09-17; 84 Days in DoD Approval cycle
Scroll created with packets and List_ID; P09-17; 84 Days in DoD Approval cycle
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Is the G1 website down? I am getting the error listed below. Or maybe the G1 got tired of me checking their website, so they blocked me.
==============================================================
An error was experienced that could not be recovered from.
This error has been logged
Reference ID: 38734470
If you continue to experience this problem, please provide the reference id to the RCMS help desk at [login to see] or by email at [login to see] .
Reminder: Please do not send emails containing personally identifiable information (PII) to the helpdesk.
Jul 12, 2017 10:55:44
==============================================================
An error was experienced that could not be recovered from.
This error has been logged
Reference ID: 38734470
If you continue to experience this problem, please provide the reference id to the RCMS help desk at [login to see] or by email at [login to see] .
Reminder: Please do not send emails containing personally identifiable information (PII) to the helpdesk.
Jul 12, 2017 10:55:44
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Seamless productivity at its best...!! Still, it explains a lot in that why should it surprise us that our respective scrolls inch along at a snail's pace, when the G1 cannot even get their website to work.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
CPT (Join to see)
P05, 06 AND 07 published rather quickly, so maybe we'll follow their path. I am praying we aren't like P03 was...what was their wait? 270+ days on the scroll?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The P08-17 scroll has moved to, "Awaiting Asst Sec Army, Man, Res Affairs appr; P08-17; 183 Days in DoD Approval cycle".
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Anyone else on P10-17?
Anyone actually work at NGB and have deeper insight to this issue? This must be something that can be "fixed."
Anyone actually work at NGB and have deeper insight to this issue? This must be something that can be "fixed."
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) - To your point about the civilians, yes, that is true, especially if they are a GS employee. They are a hermetically sealed entity and it takes an act of God for a GS employee to get fired. As such, they simply do not care; they have job security no matter how poorly and inefficiently they do their job. Even worse, they still get step raises, which are quite lucrative in the DC area. Evidence of that are the BMWs, Mercedes, and the occasional Tesla in the parking lots. Meanwhile, our brothers and sisters not only tend to their civilian careers as doctors, lawyers, police officers, firefighters, engineers, etc., but also to their military careers. We can handle multiple careers; the folks at NGB cannot even do one, and from what I know, an E2 fresh out of basic training could do the job of anyone in the FEDREC process.
(3)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
COL (Join to see) - Having an AO would definitely be an ideal solution and it certainly is a great idea. At the same time, however, I can see why the NGB will not resort to this, mainly because they do not want the AO to witness all that is wrong with the FEDREC process insofar as there being enough evidence for the AO to launch an IG complaint, which will most likely end up being a full-fledged investigation. Nevertheless, it must be done, but it is imperative that the AO's rank is above that of a GS13. As you know, those GS13s, GS14s, and GS15s hold these positions seriously, with some of them demanding they speak with a military officer of equivalent rank. It is even more frustrating when neither of these GSs have military experience. I saw this firsthand while working in the IC, to the extent that it made my eyes roll, followed by a derisive chuckle.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) - You're absolutely correct, and I too have witnessed this. When I was still an E7, I once had a GS14 civilian who was the acting CI Coordinating Authority for a region I will not disclose (not the U.S.), tell me that I needed to utilize my chain-of-command to speak with him because he was the equivalent of a LTC. This was absolutely ridiculous for multiple reasons, not the least of which was that I was the case agent on a time-sensitive investigation and I needed his approval on a particular investigative act, but he wasn't acknowledging any reports/requests I was sending up. My team chief at the time was furious and immediately called our full-bird to chew this civilian out.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Cringe worthy, indeed! And to think, we have those caliber of folks involved in our FEDREC process. True, there may be some contractors sprinkled in there, but they must always answer to a 'govvie' supervisor. Anyway, I hope you were present for the chewing out session. Good on your team chief and the full bird...!!!!
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Is there anybody else on Scroll U06-17 and who sees it sitting at the JAG office? I lost track on how long it has been there thus far.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Never mind. I just called Renee Marshall [login to see] ), the one they dubiously call the 'SME' of the FedRec process at the G1 and, to be blunt, that was a minute of my life that I want back. I learned of no potential forecast when our scroll will pass through the JAG, other than the packets were being 'scrubbed for derogatory information'. One would think, or rather assume that with the advent of modern technology, such a process would be more streamlined. Wait! How silly of me to expect this, given the fact that logging into my AKO Webmail on my personal laptop is akin to the Rube Goldberg machine. That is, leave it to the DoD to take simple tasks and then turn them into a byzantine process.
(4)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Anyone heard anything recently now its "Awaiting Asst Sec Army, Man, Res Affairs appr; U06-17; 202 Days in DoD Approval cycle"
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
P05-17 orders where published yesterday. I think they were at 132 days on the scroll. A little frustrating to be on P04-17. I can only imagine what being on P03-17 feels like.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
P04-17 should be published any day now. P03-17 got skipped when we got held up at JAG for someone's background.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT(P) (Join to see) - looking back on some of the posts, P05-17 seems to have made it to OSD a little quicker than P04-17. Hope they both publish soon.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Any news on P03-17? Seems as though the tracker has stopped altogether and has been stuck at 191 for a few days now! Anyone have the contact at NGB to follow up on this?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
See my email pict from NGB from yesterday.....appears that tracker is waaay off & we are at SECARMY......
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Like I said above, our Congressman will not do anything. I'm sure NGB gets Congressionals all the time on this stuff. The only way to fix it is to have an article written in the news about the major failure at NGB.
(1)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - Thanks, that actually helps because our scroll is saying "SECDEF" now and has been for at least two weeks now... That means something at least :(
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Yea we've been at SEC DEF for a few weeks now. Unfortunately, no one is replying to my emails or voicemails at NGB so I don't have any updated information. Still sitting on my thumb!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
P03-17 Update: I called NGB this morning and have bad news. Apparently we are still at JAG, there were some hiccups with some people's backgrounds. P04-17 skipped us and we are at least a month out. I was told differently from my second-hand sources, so this is not good news at all.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - Any word on the official date of rank? Once we get the paperwork we should all file our ABCMR backdate requests together.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - How did you hear? It still hasn't updated on the G1 site apparently.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google