How We're Planning the Biggest Personnel Overhaul in 45 Years

COL Charles Williams

As an "old soldier" who has seen several previous attempts to "overhaul" the personnel system, some good and some bad, I am skeptical.

The problem with most of these efforts is that they typically over-rely on the opinions of non-military personnel (so-called personnel experts) to establish the parameters of the policies, without the experience to understand the second and third order impact and unintended consequences of those policies.

That is much of what is wrong with our country today... too many "academicians" calling the shots who have no real world/operational experience. Theory is great, until you try to apply it to the myriad of situations that exist in the real world. Then, many times, it's not so hot.

If DoD really wanted to do this right, they would put together a group of serving and former military personnel ... and exclude the academician/social engineers ... and give the time and resources necessary to recommend the revamping of the system, based on their real-world experiences and devoid of PC/social engineering BS.

Just my opinion...

Nice thought provoker sir!

Form an "old Army" standpoint, I got out just as the BCT shift was gaining speed. At this point a lot of the CS and CSS Bn level units were starting to get phased out and re-engineered as support companies within the BCT. I get it to some degree the Army is changing to be more mobile and less dependent on large sustainment networks.

If that is the case then career paths are changing and upward mobility is changing, I'll say for now, for the worst. Why? Eliminate a Bn and you lose a boat load of senior NCO and Company grade O positions that are needed for education and advancement. Close a Bn which had an HHC and 4 companies and you have 4 O-3s and 4-E8s looking for command slots. Where do these folks go? You are also squeezing the life out of CSS/CS units - SC, TC, MI, etc. With no place to go, how do folks get tracked for command and upper level staff positions?

I'd say its only appropriate that the overhaul is needed to address these types of situations. The way things are going CA will be the only branches "qualified" to command above company grade and competition for non CA companies is going to increase dramatically. The personnel force needs to restructure to fit the needs of the force structure and career progression needs to be defined to meet these changes so all career soldiers have a fighting chance to compete.

It's about damned time, too many marginal performers were promoted because we needed numbers and they've found a way to slide through the cracks - it is time to rid the force of those non performers.

The QMP identifies those that have had something negative in their current rank, whether a DUI/GOMOR etc., it is in the records and help identify them for removal from service. This is a good system because it allows those professionals that continue to serve with dignity, honor and respect continue serving our country.

The QSP is a numbers issue, MOS's that over promoted through the last decade are faced with the dilemma of reducing the number of Service Members at a specific rank, it is purely a tool to get the correct end strength required to meet the mission, and based on where you are (time in service or in grade or level/position), you can be identified to leave the service or the MOS. Not a bad system as it gets the manpower levels where we need them.

And here's a suggestion, while we are at it, get rid of the indefinite reenlistment option. I reenlisted with just over 10 years of service (indefinite) in 1996, which I ended up with an ETS date of 2018....a 22 year reenlistment, that is way too long. Had it not been for wanting to deploy again, I would have applied to retire at 26 years of service (2012) however, with another opportunity to deploy I wanted to continue to serve.

I truly see these as great programs, and the negativity around it that I really see is the loss of combat veterans - for those still serving you can see a larger population across the formation without any combat experience - that, I see as the only drawback. great topic COL Charles Williams!