Officer Retention

[patmc]

I agree with you, those criteria will probably be used, my question is should they?

Someday promotion rates for all ranks will fall below 90% (any takers on when?), and promotion boards will be more than rubber stamps for no DUI (aka CPT board). I'm not denying that the list I stated will probably be the standard for most, but the question is whether it should? When boards look at files, should they do cuts by command or not? Lots of great people can't get a command, so they shouldn't be promoted? Again, a guy with a year commanding AIT deserves promotion more than a guy who did BN S2, BDE AS2, S2X, and maybe even BDE S2? What about a logistics officer that didn't command a FSC, but was S3, S4, and maybe even a SPO? The boards will promote based on their experience, which is largely, I commanded, so he/she should have. The one officer from your branch may not be able to explain what an officer in that branch actually needs to be successful. Their default will be what they did and know. The Army promoted people who checked the right blocks for decades, and it didn't set us up too well for OIF or OEF, at least after "end of combat." Maybe the boards should be looking at performance, rather than just jobs filled. Can a staff captain outperform his peers who are in command? Yes, but he probably will get ranked lower bc "command matters more." If boards were able to spend more than a couple minutes per person, they could move past "what looks right."


No idea how you would redo promotions, maybe more decentralized like junior NCOs, with senior, LTC and above, at HRC. How do you change HRC? I know there are plenty of people on this board who would suggest dynamite, but that's honestly above my level and experience.

Quick aside on promotions and retention... Current high levels are keeping in people who would not have been promoted, and are discouraging people that work hard but are promoted equally. My good friend got tired of working hard in the S3 shop with no satisfaction or gain, knowing he would be promoted and paid the same as every other person, no matter how hard he worked. He got out and got an awesome job, moved in with his girlfriend in DC, and is living the dream. The Army needs to keep people like him in mind.

Just to play devil's advocate, one of these days promotion rates will return to their historical norms. When we're back down around 70% to Major, how do you think boards will evaluate individuals?

With the exact list you typed out.

Blocking & Senior Rater Profiles will return (in some way, shape or form). Then those things you listed are going to have a significant impact on an Officer's file via the assignments they've held.

[Ken White]

Better HMX, it's twice as powerful, less chance of a Phoenix like reappearance...

[Courtney Massengale]

I Maybe the boards should be looking at performance, rather than just jobs filled. Can a staff captain outperform his peers who are in command? Yes, but he probably will get ranked lower bc "command matters more." If boards were able to spend more than a couple minutes per person, they could move past "what looks right."

I think the answer to this is to restrict language on evaluations to only potential to serve in the next grade.

If we're talking about potential to be a Major, then there isn't much difference between staff and Command. If we're talking what the performance captured on that evaluation for TOTAL future service in all possible ranks and positions, then you're only limited by the grade and experience of the rater/senior rater.

If the regulations limited comments to be about only the next grade, it would level the playing field. Of course, it would also eliminate the idea that you can identify talent and groom it toward larger things. Would that help or hurt retaining the best and brightest?

How do you change HRC? I know there are plenty of people on this board who would suggest dynamite, but that's honestly above my level and experience.

One of the things that has been kicked around are 360 evaluations - including input from peers and subordinates in the file somehow someway. Of the various proposals over the years, all have been seriously flawed. I'm not sure if its possible to pull it off, but if (as some have mentioned) being a great leader is about Soldiers, then they should have some input.

Just to add, I do think it IS possible to come up with a methodology for including it, but it would be in a format that the Army would balk at because the requirements to make it unbiased would also make it too objective. Which might not be a bad thing.

[Ski]

One of the other restrictions - and this is obviously limited to a few percentage points of any year group - is permanent profiles that do not allow someone to deploy. I know of one 06 who falls into this category and I'm sure there are plenty of 04's and 05's as well. CENTCOM has some fairly restrictive policies on permanent profiles the last time I looked (over a year ago so perhaps it's changed since).

[tankersteve]

Ken,

I understand your bigger view, but it is discouraging to those who are in the mix. We used to look at the incoming leadership list for an NTC rotation and it would show OIF/OEF experience. Some were surprised at guys commanding or senior staff with no experience, but I was just glad they were going. They could have ducked it and everybody has their first time.

Niel, thanks for the backup. You mentioned it in a previous post that the Marines put the call out to the ranks, saying lack of combat zone experience would probably be detrimental in promotion boards. Nothing derogatory to those who hadn't served, just reminding them to work to get to the fight. However, some junior officers in the Army now are starting to develop more biased views of those who couldn't manage to at least get to the combat zone. Again, lots of staff positions and MiTT jobs out there.

It really hits the junior ranks the hardest. This thread is about officer retention. How about the 1LT, going back for his 2nd deployment, with less than 2 years in the Army, and noting 2 things:

First, he already has more combat experience than an awful lot of O-6s, and is more intimately involved than they are in what the Army is doing.

Second, the Army doesn't seem to be as committed to the fight as an institution as he would like to see.

I am sure in past wars the Army had 'image' issues with its training and various support centers (research, doctrine, material commands, etc) as to their involvement with the current war, but the whole nation at least understood we were in a war.

A good friend on Facebook noted with frustration that CNN opened with a Michael Jackson story (1 week after his death) and 20 minutes later, got to mentioning the Marines' offensive in Afghanistan and the news of a captured Soldier. BBC led with an Afghan update and mentioned the other items in passing.

With the press (indicative of the population) nonchalant about the war, and indicators that the Army isn't always fully invested, it can greatly disillusion the young leader.

As for HRC, I have no ideas where to start there. Perhaps it is just a result of a large Army where people are simply a commodity to be managed. Every OER revision that comes out is supposed to be the solution to the problem of the month. If I was in charge for a year (IIWICFAY), I think coaching the HRC leadership to have a longer outlook on decisions, and orienting them around combat effectiveness, would be a place to start.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

...but it is discouraging to those who are in the mix.

Just trying to remind anyone who cares that:

They could have ducked it and everybody has their first time.

we all had a first time, some not as soon as they wished.

Second, the Army doesn't seem to be as committed to the fight as an institution as he would like to see.

Also understand that; the Army does not do a good job of explaining all that it does and why it does many things as it should. That's partly culture ('Never explain, never complain'), partly arrogance, partly ignorance ('I'm a fifty year old Colonel and I know that, why doesn't LT Twentytwo know it?'), partly the time pressure. Need to do better.

I am sure in past wars the Army had 'image' issues with its training and various support centers (research, doctrine, material commands, etc) as to their involvement with the current war, but the whole nation at least understood we were in a war.

FWIW, in both Korea and Viet Nam, concern with military issues, troop issues and knowledge of what was happening in the service, with the VA and in distant theaters was an order of magnitude or two less than is the case today. Compared to those two wars, you guys have a nation that is slightly more informed and concerned and far more supportive. Media in Korea were more knowledgeable and less biased (WW II media vets...), in Viet Nam they were as or more ignorant than today and about equally biased.

With the press (indicative of the population) nonchalant about the war, and indicators that the Army isn't always fully invested, it can greatly disillusion the young leader.

True. I don't agree with it either -- but I'm quite sure it goes with the territory and I'm personally convinced that rather than commiserating with them, telling them "Yep, that's the way it is in a democracy. Always has been and it isn't likely to change. You better get used to it" is a more realistic approach. That will cause some to leave for various reasons and that should be okay; it is not a job for everyone and enough that can realize and accept that reality have always stayed. I don't see that changing.