Posted on Feb 5, 2014
How much do you think TIS factors in to MSG promotion? And other thoughts...
40.2K
80
44
4
4
0
Ok, first and foremost - I am simply trying to learn here. I am not bitter, and in fact I believe the promotion system is probably fair as fair is going to get in our Army. This is my first look at MSG, and frankly I didn't expect to get selected, and while I was disappointed to not see a sequence number next to my name...I wasn't angry or upset or anything. After all, my consolation prize is my assignment that is a SFC billet in USARPAC doesn't go away and I PCS to Shafter in less than a month :)<div><br></div><div>So I read the board AAR and combined with my own thoughts this is what I was thinking today...</div><div><br></div><div>Actually first, some stats.</div><div><br></div><div>The overall Army selection for MSG was about 8% from what I'm reading. My MOS selected 3%. 11 total people.</div><div><br></div><div>1) How much does TIS factor? I only knew one person that was selected in my field. I know a lot of people in my field. I reclassed in 2004, and usually know most seniors. Or have at least crossed paths. One person I knew was nearly or over 20 years of service and he was sequence #2, meaning someone had over 20 in front of him and possibly behind him. So at LEAST 20% or so of the selectees had 20 years in, compared to my 13. The board AAR is careful to not mention this. Even primary/secondary results are no longer usually published in regular channels.</div><div><br></div><div>2) The board mentions a ton of stuff that doesn't seem to apply to some MOSs, but it baffles me. I have a friend on his sixth look, 11B, didn't validate his record, didn't update his ERB from deployment, didn't get a new photo (all dings on the AAR comments) and boom, he gets picked up. I understand authorizations and I don't expect them to create an auth for my MOS just to pick me up, but the fact that some people get picked up this way baffles me. Is 11B THAT bad that someone who meets the ding on each subject area of the board AAR gets selected?</div><div><br></div><div>3) I'm not 100% sure (actually pretty sure they aren't) the board members from MI came from the two MOSs that compete for my MSG (MI has three MSG MOSs, with different MOSs competing for each one) MOS. How do you feel about SGMs who aren't from your MOS judging the people in your MOS? At the very least, there were only two 35Z that I saw, which means even if they came from different MOS, at least one MSG MOS wasn't represented. I hope that makes sense. MI MSG can be 35X, 35Y, or 35Z depending on your SFC MOS. My MOS combines with 35M and 35L into 35Y. So even if one of the SGMs was a 35M and one was say a 35P, at least one MSG MOS wasn't represented. Not sure I agree with that. I understand budgets, and gathering people together, and the complications of having more and more "judges" but still. Some of the MI MOS may NEVER EVER work together. For example, I have only met a 35S at SLC, and only one and once. Even as a SGM I might not have a clue what a 35S is really about and certainly not the intricacies of their individual qualifications (like this 35S has this school - maybe it's a HUGE deal that only a few have ever done, or maybe it's common)...so I find it hard to believe that they can accurately judge if this SFC 35S (just an example) is above his peers in some areas.<br></div><div><br></div><div>4) They definitely focused on weight fluctuations in the AAR. They didn't seem too lenient on that. So my weight jumped up 20 pounds. I put on a lot of muscle mass during deployment. My photo is like a week max before the board I think, so I'm clearly not fat or even close. My APFTs also say 296, etc. It said pass. Yet I still feel like they would judge negatively.</div><div><br></div><div>What are your thoughts? Do you have additional comments to add that seemed weird on the board?</div><div><br></div><div>I'm tempted to email some of the people that made it and asked what they thought set them apart so I could try to emulate my peers and get better. But half the time when I ask someone they are like "I don't know what the heck was different this year" etc.</div>
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 14
13
13
0
8% is a tough cut, 3% is even harder! As an NCO that personally looked over your records I just want to add a few comments with what I just seen in my Brigade. Preparing for a board takes months, not weeks! Each category has it's own importance and attention to detail that can make or break your overall score when being reviewed. <div><br></div><div>With that said, I can absolutely understand your frustration, as 3/5 1SGs I serve with are SFCs, all with multiple assignments, schools, and qualifications. Across my Brigade there are an additional six that are serving in 1SG positions. Of those nine, only one made it, ONE!!! Another SFC made the list, one of my platoon sergeants with zero 1SG time and 24 months as a PSG. Why in my opinion did he get the nod over eight SFCs serving in 1SG positions? Simple, I made sure my CSM bought off on numerating him number 1 of 15 PSGs in the unit. Why again? Because he was and is! Nothing gives better attention to a panel of board members then numerations, and statements of promote now/immediately, send to this or that course now, and future potential positions like future CSM or 1SG pay dividends. Again in my opinion, you can have the greatest evaluations or all the schools but if you don't take the time to prepare for your board you are hurting yourself.</div><div><br></div><div>Another note, I personally escorted him to his photo, I personally went to S1 with him to update his records, and I went document by document comparing his OMPF to what he had in his I Love Me Book. It takes Leaders being actively involved in helping our best get selected. I know every senior NCO has keys to the success of getting the nod, that's just my experiences. Best of luck next year and I am here if you want me to take a look at your records. <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
(13)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Yeah I definitely wished I had met you and CSM Maynard prior to the board file, but ultimately the things we talked about couldn't be changed or I would hope were nice little touches but shouldn't have affected the outcome.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
That's a great point 1SG. I remember trying to enumerate on one of my Soldiers NCOERs and getting push back from the 1SG and CSM. I couldn't understand it. Officers do it on our OERS, the only real draw back is when you ask for enumeration and get the hard truth that your not number one or even in the top 5.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Since someone else revived this topic, I just wanted to come back and say I got picked up. And I think that's because of the advice you gave me. So everyone take note and listen to what he said.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
<p> My perspective is a little different. I had the opportunity to sit on a MSG promotion board a few years ago. I'm an infantryman, so our (mine and the CSMs who sat with me) task was to look at all 11-series MOSs only. Everyone who sits on a board does things a little differently, so my comments only pertain to what I did. For a typical file, I would first look at the official photo for an initial impression. Next, I would look at the ERB. After viewing the photo and ERB, I would move to NCOERs concentrating on what the NCO did as a SFC. We were looking for platoon sergeant time. The target was 2 years. I also looked at how the NCO did in each of the last few jobs, which were usually squad leader, some type of instructor (Airborne or Ranger instructor, drill sergeant, ROTC, etc.), or a recruiter. I looked for sustained performance at a high level. Contributing factors include many of the things already discussed by others - additional military schooling, professional development schooling and assignments, civilian schooling, awards and decorations, height/weight, PT scores, etc. There is no point system used during promotion boards at this level. After reviewing the file, we, as board members, assigned a score to the file, and moved on to the next one. I spent about 3-4 minutes per file initially, and probably got closer to 2-3 minutes as I got more proficient. Ultimately, we reviewed hundreds of files. </p><p> I offer the following advice: do the best you can in the job you have right now, push for jobs in the operating force in line with your rank and MOS (stay away from the generating force as much as possible), and keep your records updated. As a final point, all MOSs are not the same, and NCOs are "graded" differently during promotion boards. Clearly understand what is expected of you as a SFC in your MOS, and then go out and do it to the best of your abilities. </p>
(12)
(0)
COL Richard Bassett
SFC O., I recall adjudicating similar situations during the board. I recall being very angry with chains of command for not doing their job. In my experience, the situation you present was not very common. The more common situation was the inability of raters and senior raters to write effective NCOERs. What happened in all of these cases was the chain of command lost their vote, and placed the onus on us, the board members, to decide. If I came across a file that had an anomaly (an NCOER that wasn't like the rest with a downward performance trend), I looked at the complete record, and came to a judgment. Was it a rater/senior rater problem, or was it a rated NCO problem? If I couldn't find any other negative indicators, I gave the benefit of the doubt to the rated NCO. I can only hope that other board members would act similarly. Best of luck to you.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
COL Richard Bassett - Sir, My name is SFC Janson (11B) paratrooper I have been in the service 20 plus year. I have done everything possible in my career; 54 months of PSG; PLDC instructor, Master Instructor, BDE Staff; I also went to SFQC (shoulder went out/ med drop);ranger school (torn ACL /med drop); 57 credit hours of college and I was also inducted into Sergeant Audie Murphy Board in 2013 and now I am in division level as EOA and I still did not made the list last year. Basically this is my last chance and If I don't make it , is time to hang it up.
(0)
(0)
COL Richard Bassett
SFC Janson, it certainly sounds like you've done all the things you needed to do to ensure your best chance at getting promoted. Unfortunately, we don't promote ourselves. We have to rely on the promotion boards. Without knowing the specifics in your file, I can't tell you why you haven't been selected. At the end of the day, if you have given it your best, then you've done your part. Best of luck on the next board, and from an old retired guy, thank you for your continued service.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Ok, very late responding to this post, but I'd to cover some things not mentioned in the posts so far.
Whoever prepared the cover memo can't do math. Rates for Primary/Seccondary weren't 9% and 7% as stated, actually do the math and you'll see that it was 11% and 14%. So, better rate for Secondary, not Primary as the Cover Memo would lead you to believe. The FY14 MSG Reconciliation Report breaks it all down by MOS and there are very wide swings between Primary/Secondary.
So, now on to your questions.
1) Seq #s are arranged by Seniority (DOR, then BASD if DOR is the same). So #1 does not necessarily have more TIS than #2. Now, does, TIS matter. Absolutely. Think of it like this. Those in the Primary Zone for the first time were passed over when they were in the Secondary, so we would expect them to be a little less competitive than those in the Secondary. This law of averages continues to reduce the average competitiveness for each successive look in the Primary, therefore mathematically, we would expect the "virgin" pool of Secondaries to be better than the total pool of Primaries.
2) Can someone get picked up who did not spend the time/energy making everything right. Yep - based on the pool and the slots. So, maybe you don't have to have perfect records or a photo or a validation to get picked up, but I have to think your odds are better if you do.
3) Board composition cannot represent all MOS that feed into the E8 positions. So, we may see slight differences in feeder selection rates based on the understanding of the board members. Realize though, that they use the DA Pam to understand the MOS's and they all agree on "standards" for their panel. Additionally, there are usually one to two other branches in the panel and they will have even less intimate knowledge of your specific MOS. I use this as a caution to those writing NCOERs that are full of MOS specific acronyms and accomplishments. Remember the audience - panel members need to easily understand the accomplishments/achievements without having to de-code/de-cipher.
4) Height/Weight fluctuations has more to do with those gaining weight and gaining height. You get the point. Additionally, they look at a significant gain in weight on an NCOER with a photo that is before that weight gain. Makes them think you are hiding your weight if your photo is not very recent.
Great idea of emailing the folks who were selected. If they would let you see their ERB and NCOERs that might be a great way to compare records.
Hope these comments are helpful.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google