Are promotion rates really returning to normal?

2015-11-24T08:23:46-05:00

Did anyone else see this story and wonder what planet Army Times is reporting from?

For the FA 53, it was a 52% selection for MAJ. That's nowhere near normal.

Major select rates returning to normal

Promotion opportunity similar to that seen before 9/11

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Nov 24 at 2015 8:28 AM

2015-11-24T08:28:25-05:00

here is the scary thing... back in the day, when promotion rates were high, everyone got promoted and were able to make it to 20 years....easily.
now, they are dropping and if you don't get promoted, you get put out to pasture (and that could be around ten years (pin on to MAJ). No retirement.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Nov 24 at 2015 9:36 AM

2015-11-24T09:36:12-05:00

A few thoughts:
- The definition of a minute depends upon what side of the bathroom door you are on.
- Any figure can be manipulated or subdivided to tell a different story from either a macro (big picture) point of view to a micro (little picture) point of view.
- The latest overall branch average of MAJ promotion rates (69.3%) is about the historical average (70%). There was wide variation, however, among branches with a high of 79.8% for Armor and a low of 43.2% for Chemical. Functional area average was 71.3% with a high of 87.5% for FA49 (ORSA) and a low of 42.9% for FA29 Electronic Warfare.
- Long story short. I think the Army Times article is accurate from a macro perspective but there is wide variation as one subdivides the numbers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-11-24T10:05:19-05:00

Jupiter where men are stupider lol

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Nov 24 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-11-24T11:10:05-05:00

Since normal is a statistical distribution MAJ Private RallyPoint Member that is an interesting question. Do you mean are promotion rates returning to the percentages they were in years gone by for Major?
52% may be nowhere near "normal;" but, is is close to the mean of the Major population for FA 53 :-)

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-11-24T11:39:05-05:00

In my humble uninformed opinion, I would say that the Army is using promotions to the senior/field grade ranks as a convenient force shaping tool in order to avoid the potential political fallout associated with RIF's/SERB/OSB's that we have previously had. If the board does not select an officer, they do not have to justify why that officer was not selected or reveal where their packet fell in comparison to their peers who were or were not selected. Like 99% of the other FA 53's out there, I am definitely cognizant that promotion to O-4 and above is nowhere near as 'assured' as it might have been a few years ago (I was selected in FY12 when I believe the rate was around 70% for FA 53's). I just hope the Army does not shoot itself in the foot a decade from now when they decide that our functional area is undermanned across the board.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Nov 24 at 2015 5:06 PM

2015-11-24T17:06:44-05:00

I wonder often what planet and army that Army Times writes about...I think they just came out with the 2030 pay scale. It is media and while I read it to stay up to date, it minimally meets that with real army news.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Nov 25 at 2015 7:59 PM

2015-11-25T19:59:23-05:00

As several below have stated the Army is using promotion boards to reduce the force. When they justify promotion rates back to normal they are referring to peacetime conditions. Wartime they tend to go up along with increased troop strength. It's always been a roller coaster graph chart. Bottom line, it's public affairs jargon; there is no normal promotion rate.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2015 5:21 AM

2015-11-27T05:21:37-05:00

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.

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

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 1:33 PM

2015-11-29T13:33:07-05:00

I'm skeptical and curious how this bodes for O6s. The "historical norm" cited for O6 promotions is 50%...yet the percentage of O5s that get CSL is closer to 17% (give or take, depending on branch), and I see few non CSL types getting promoted. Granted, there's some attrition at O5, but not enough to bring those rates to 50%. Based on that anecdote, I'm inclined to support the post about the difference between "promotion opportunity" a opposed to actual promotions.