Are promotion rates really returning to normal?

Sir:

Two points: one on terminology, and one on actual historical promotion rates.

A need to use accurate terminology. The “promotion” rate for the FY15 LTC Board wasn’t 69.5%; the “promotion opportunity” rate was. The “promotion” rate for those in the primary zone for this board was about 60%. DOPMA sets the norm for the “promotion opportunity” rate for LTC promotions at 70%. The promotion opportunity rate equals all those selected for promotion (BZ, PZ, AZ) divided by only those in the primary zone.

On your overall point, though, you’re absolutely correct. Data can be manipulated to tell any story one wants.

For example, the Army is a master at manipulating data to sell its message, which one could interpret as other than a total commitment to transparency. In the case of LTC promotions, the Army isn’t actually using any promotion data, and instead appears to be relying completely on the 70% guideline established by DOPMA.

The current Army message is that promotions are returning to the historic norm, but doesn’t define what the “historic” part of this means. Historians (you know, actual academics who study history) use a concept called periodization to frame the time period they are discussing. In the current case with the Army message, I suspect the Army isn’t using a periodization. Furthermore, I suspect that the Army isn’t using actual historical data from previous promotion boards. I suspect the Army is using the limits established by DOPMA (which came into force in 1981), by which the Army is not obligated to abide.

In other words, the Army doesn’t actually mean promotion rates are returning to the historical norm. The Army means that promotion rates are falling in line with DOPMA guidance.

If promotion rates were returning to historical norms, a lot more majors would be getting promoted. The Army would have to count the 12 or so years (from about 2001-2012) where rates of promotion opportunity to LTC were well above 90% (and sometimes as high as 110%). I suspect, though, that the Army is discounting these years when everyone got promoted, even though they account for more than a third of the history since DOPMA was enacted. The Army would also have to look at promotion rates from 1981 to 2015 overall. To be even more accurate (from a historical perspective, anyway), the Army would have to look at promotion rates to O-5 from 1775 to 2015. THAT analysis would give an actual “historic norm.” However, doing such an analysis (or, really, any analysis) is apparently beyond the capacity of the Army, or at least beyond the perspective of the Army when it comes to the idea of transparency.

In using only Google searches (ie, publically available data), here’s what I found:

Historic Promotion Opportunity Rates to LTC
Average yearly rate from 1979-2015: 87.17% (note: I couldn’t find data for 1992-2000, so I used the DOPMA rate of 70%, which I suspect is well below what the actual rates were)
2015-69.5%
2014-63%
2013-83%
2012-94.8%
2001-2011: Average of 107.5%
1992-2000: (No data found; I’m using the 70% DOPMA standard, which is very likely well below actual promotion rates)
1991-70
1990-73%
1989-70
1988-73
1987-77
1986-no promotion board
1985-86
1984-85
1983-87
1982-77
1981-72
1980-72
1979-75

I also found a bunch of U//FOUO powerpoint slides from HRC that show historic PZ promotion rates from 1986-2015, but I’m not including that here, given RallyPoint isn’t at the U//FOUO level.

Conclusion: If I were using the Washington Post Fact Checker guidelines, the Army’s assertion that LTC promotion rates are returning to historical norms would garner a four Pinocchio rating. In other words, one would need to throw the BS flag here. Either: 1) the Army suffers from an inability to do simple math (ie, take the average of promotion opportunity rates over time and divide by the number of years); 2) the Army suffers from a lack of ability to understand that a significant difference exists between the 69.5% promotion opportunity rate from the FY15 LTC board and the historical norm of 87.17% from 1979-2015 (this is a difference of 17.67%!); or 3) the Army has decided that the message that LTC promotion rates are returning to historic norms sounds better than a message that LTC promotion rates are the lowest in the history of DOPMA (and, maybe, ever---we need more data to determine this!).

Some sources:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/1993/R4246.pdf
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=GbzgsGIglakC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=army+lieutenant+colonel+promotion+rates+1990s&source=bl&ots=Gk1mSDTHMw&sig=4PgOFVE-fBuEFfhFXU2N4a2HrSo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=army%20lieutenant%20colonel%20promotion%20rates%201990s&f=false

I think your understanding of the term historic rates is a bit off and you are applying a definition that was never intended to be used for the DOPMA construct. This opportunity was developed as a numerical model to ensure promotion opportunities that would meet the needs of the army. The guideline of a 70 percent promotion opportunity for LTC is a guide used by the army, meaning that if promotion to that rate is accomplished, the army will have enough Ltcs to meet Army requirements. Promotion rates up to 2012 were so "high" because the army was growing but in the 90s not enough officers were assessed or retained in the force.

It may be hard to think of the army as a business, but the challenges faced by the army are no different than those faced by ford or GM in 2009. They had to contract and were forced to let a lot of people go as they restructured and reorganized.

A word of caution about using historical models with the army. Our army since post Cold War is very different now than prior to Cold War. Think about how much we demobilized after ww2.

The Army is forced to make some very hard choices when it comes to personnel and many of these choices are not as simple as black or white. For example, the army made the decision to reduce the number of LTs in the early nineties in order to allow more senior officers to retire with 20 years. Seemed like the right thing to do, but after 9/11 when we were critically short MAJs it appeared to be a boneheaded decision. It was however a choice made without the benefit of hindsight, a situation not too different than today.

Given recent events, I hope we don't go below 450K, which I think is still too small

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM Sir: Agreed on the point that promotion rates are all about math. Also agreed on the point that promotion rates are low because slots at higher ranks are already filled, but not for the reasons you suggest. Rather, the Army has chosen to have low promotion rates for more junior officers and to continue more senior officers (O-5 and O-6) in service. For example, the Army COULD have decided to aggressively target O-5s and O-6s in SERBs to create slots at the O-5 and O-6 levels for junior officers to be promoted into. In essence, the Army has decided that older year groups (say, 1985-1996 or so) are better year groups that younger year groups (say, 1997-2002 or so).

It's also interesting since FA53 CPT and MAJs are what the army is shortest on and has a call to active duty for (only that and CA). Shortsighted in my opinion since a good chunk of 17s are gonna come from the 53 population. And 17 will be the hot mos over the next few years

MAJ Jager, you could be right about the 05/06 SERB but I would have to so research to confirm/deny. I seem to remember that SERBs can not cut more than 30% of a year group. The Army has conducted 05/06 SERBs but I do not know the percentage of cut that came out of these boards.

Sad to hear, sir, when the average was 69% and the 53s were so much lower. In today's highly technical world, one would think 53s would have higher promotion rates, rather than spending all that money training them only to force them out after a few years. I think what may be hurting the 53 field now is the emergence of the 17 series. 53 was one of the bill-payers position-wise for them. We may be paying the price now with lower promotion rates due to less positions being available.

Sir, correct... but the Cyber branch is very new and people have been pushed over recently. I think this will start affecting next year's boards for the 53 Branch.