Contextualizing the Results: Improving the Order of Merit List

Let me start by saying I hung up my uniform in 1984 and have been completely away from the system since 2012.

This article suggests improvements that would be worthwhile if those improvements were possible, but I don't believe they are. The article presumes that each board member reviews every record thoroughly while also saying that each record gets reviewed for "three to five minutes" -- my impression from the description of the process and my knowledge of centralized promotion boards back in my days suggests that most records get less review than stated, with only the best and some of the worst getting that much time.

The article also suggests that each board member reviews every record against each of the items in the pile of guidance provided from multiple sources... In this I feel confident in saying BS! No matter how professional the board members want to be, the size of the task means they will be taking shortcuts. Do we really believe the each and every board member considers each and every one of the recommended qualifications equally significant, or do we acknowledge that everyone has their own opinions about what matters most -- and then acknowledge that most records are checked for whether or not that record has the needed tickets punched.

I am not suggesting that the current system doesn't work or that it isn't as close to fair as we are likely to accomplish, but I am strongly suggesting that the level of personalized feedback recommended in the article is either impossible or the feedback would be trivial. Anyone can already read the guidance that the board is given. Anyone can already match their record against that guidance. All the quantifiable points are already available to everyone. It is only the subjective points that people can't find on their own. Questions like was your time as a Master Gunner worth more or less than someone else's time as a Drill Sergeant. Could we really collect that sort of data? And, if we did, would the data really be useful in any practical way, or would it just exacerbate the feelings that the board made mistakes.

More statistical data is easy, and really would help people to understand where they stand relative to their peers, but I don't see the "Personalized Feedback" as being achievable and worthwhile.

Really interesting note here CSM Chuck Stafford, thanks for sharing!

"While it’s true less than 20 percent of soldiers made it to retirement under the old system, initial term losses skew the relevance of that statistic, as those losses were unlikely to be assessed at talent evaluation boards year after year. NCOs with desire to serve for many years beyond their initial enlistments now weigh OML results alongside their matched Thrift Savings Plans. While the blended retirement system is certainly good for many mid-career service members, it does add a unique layer of complexity to uncontextualized OML results."