Printable View
How (links, pages, phone numbers gratefully accepted) may a civilian observe the on-going process by which the current selection committee for Major General candidates operates? Interacting with the committee members would be a distinct plus, as I'm trying to get a "systems" understanding of what goes on and the results. Thanks!
The POTUS picks someone from "the list" with some advice from SecDef, service Secretary and Chief of Staff. The candidate's name then goes to Senate.
Politics anyone :D
References:
Cornell Law, title 10, US Code
Army Regulation 600–8–29
The Army Promotion System
Created to enable new thread by a new member.
I understand the rules fairly well; rules are not the process. I'd like to know who's on the active committee and learn about their process of selection. Any one know how I'd contact the committee that's doing selection now?
if you want sound guidance on Title 10, ask a SNCO - not a lawyer. Stan on hyva lakimies - kasarmessa huoneessa ! :D
here are a couple of more resources:
Library of Congress Federal Research Division, General and Flag Officer Authorizations (2007) (63 pages):
and CJCSI 1331.01D (1 August 2010), MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL ACTIONS INVOLVING GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS. This is updated every few years.Quote:
PREFACE
This report is a contribution to the ongoing debate about whether the authorizations in Title 10 of the U.S. Code for general and flag officers (G/FOs) specify appropriate numbers and pay grades. Congress has not revised G/FO authorizations since 1996. The report addresses, in particular, the issues of whether the numbers and/or pay grades of G/FOs in the reserve component (RC) are commensurate with the increasing reliance upon the reserve forces in military operations, and whether G/FO strength in the RC is equitable compared to G/FO strength in the active component (AC). The report sheds light on these questions by examining current Title 10 authorizations and their near-term background and by providing a longer-term historical account of the fluctuations in G/FO levels in the AC over the entire postWorld War II period.
The report proposes that the salient concerns when G/FO levels are considered for the AC and the RC, respectively, have always differed. In the AC, the preoccupation tends to be with the size of the G/FO corps. Appropriate size is viewed as a function in part of the overall size of the force, and is often measured as a troop-to-officer ratio or proportion. In the RC, the preoccupation is with the degrees of institutional power that the RCs top officers can wield within the Pentagon and other decision-making venues. This preoccupation with greater institutional power or voice has mainly translated over the years into campaigns to increase the authorizations and opportunities for reserve G/FOs to serve above the two-star level, rather than campaigns to increase the overall size of the reserve G/FO corps. This different preoccupation; i.e., with G/FO pay grades rather than numbers -in turn has meant that discussions about reserve G/FO strength are carried on without any systematic or longitudinal reference to troop-to-officer ratios or other such measures of proportional officer strength. Such measures of proportional numerical strength would be less meaningful in connection with the RC, because the claims that greater reserve G/FO strength are warranted do not rest on how large the reserve force is, but on how intensively it is used. Moreover, measures of proportional numerical strength would be, in any case, very challenging to use with reference to the RC, because of the plethora of categories of reservists, the shifts of duty status that reservists experience, and other factors.
I'd suggest you become familiar (by searching Title 10) for all its refs to G/FOs (see Enclosure H to 1331); and also all the refs you find to the term "positions of importance and responsibility".Quote:
References: See Enclosure H.
1. Purpose. This instruction implements Department of Defense (DOD) policy and provides guidance for the effective management of general/flag officer (G/FO) actions involving joint duty assignments (JDAs) or positions of importance and responsibility per Title 10, United States Code (10 USC), and DOD policy and directives.
As to the selection processes (by services and grades), CJCSI 1331.01D discusses them.
This is a specialized subject in which I have no particular SME.
Regards
Mike
BTW: I've noticed that since the server change, the editor can't handle umlauted vowels - so, "hyva" in the Finnish sentence in opening. :(
(in the cold light of morning):
On its face, I'd say you are asking what can't be done under 10 USC 613a:Quote:
from Don Riggs
I'd like to know who's on the active committee and learn about their process of selection. Any one know how I'd contact the committee that's doing selection now?
Is this getting close to your question ?Quote:
§ 613a - Nondisclosure of board proceedings
(a) Nondisclosure.—
The proceedings of a selection board convened under section 611 this title may not be disclosed to any person not a member of the board.
(b) Prohibited Uses of Board Discussions, Deliberations, and Records.—
The discussions and deliberations of a selection board described in subsection (a) and any written or documentary record of such discussions and deliberations
(1) are immune from legal process;
(2) may not be admitted as evidence; and
(3) may not be used for any purpose in any action, suit, or judicial or administrative proceeding without the consent of the Secretary of the military department concerned.
Selection Boards are covered by Title 10 here:
RegardsQuote:
10 USC 611 - Convening of selection boards
10 USC 612 - Composition of selection boards
10 USC 613 - Oath of members of selection boards
10 USC 613a - Nondisclosure of board proceedings
10 USC 614 - Notice of convening of selection boards
10 USC 615 - Information furnished to selection boards
10 USC 616 - Recommendations for promotion by selection boards
10 USC 617 - Reports of selection boards
10 USC 618 - Action on reports of selection boards
Mike
All the rules in Title 10 as rerferenced in the other post must be adhered to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Riggs
The selection board members names are not released until after the promotion list is approved and published. There is no outside input to the selection board or direct contact with anyone from outside the board. The secretary of the Army provides the guidance to the board. The board members are nominated through the Army G1 and the General Officer Management Office and membership is apporved by the Chief of Staff of the Army. For MG the pool of officers to sit on the board is fairly small only the 2, 3, and 4 stars. The process is designed to ensure that it is as fair as possible; judging the officers on their demonstrated potential for greater responsibility based on their past performance without any undo external influence (positive or negative).
Now if you have a complaint against an officer you should make a complaint in accordance with normal service procedures. Those selected for promotion have to be thoroughly vetted and if there are any issues, complaints, etc that are questionable of unresolved then before the promotion list is approved the officer may have to go through a promotion review board that will determine whether the officers name will be on the list or not. But if you are intending to try to provide information to board members to influence the outcome it is not possible. There is no procedure for that.
To reiterate Mike and Max's posts herein...
In general (pun intended), and having served on a selection board there is no way you could communicate with board members. Those are the rules and process.
One more reference:
US Army Human Resources Command
Hei Mika !Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
Mitä sanoitte?
Don,
I found this Thomas Ricks article via the Lowry Institute's mailing, perhaps it explains your quest, even if at the rank of brigadier-general:http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...pisrc=obinsite
An intriguing title 'A 1983 Army War College study found 1/4 of Army brigadier generals shouldn’t be':Quote:
It's pretty strong stuff. Reid looked at the Army's new class of 25 new brigadier generals, most of them from the infantry and artillery branches, and asked the 110 battalion commanders who had served under them to assess them. Consistently, about one-third were rated by name as incompetent, not caring about their people, not developing subordinates, and more managers than leaders. Most significantly, about one-third of the battalion commanders said they would not want to serve under that general again or be led by him in combat. About a quarter of the new BGs should not have been promoted to that rank, Reid bravely concludes.
(Ricks asks)I wonder what a survey today would find.
David,
I read the article... hairy stuff; thanks. I was thinking about a process special, something bookish or to run on Military Channel, about the process. Any thoughts?
Don,
Not my area of expertise. Perhaps an article for SWJ, that may help your own thinking and expression. I expert, albeit from the UK, some media types in the USA do check here and of course we have Robert Haddick's expertise too.:)