Army Officer cuts Disproportionally Affect Prior Enlisted?

Not the Mustangs! Dedicated leaders who had to crawl through the trenches and up the cliff to get to their commission. Nothing but love and respect for all of them. In today's ultra PC till death approach to.....everything, I look at this fact as coincidental. If Officers are going to be reduced, they go for ones with less promotion potential. If a Mustang has many more years in then someone else, they must figure that less time left means less chances to climb the ranks. If it is something more sinister, I will be one of the first to hold a picket sign and join the cause. Great topic for discussion, by the way.

We (71Bs) got hammered on the MAJ promotion boards last week. 50% promotion rate, down from almost 100% last year and over recent years. I was shocked to see that much of a reduction when you consider it's all soldiers with PhDs.

Here are my thoughts...

1. It is highly likely.
2. The cuts in numbers are normally by year group and based on a population they are trying to get to by year group and what the Army end Strenth is going to be.
3. Right now, what I know of, the year groups that are getting hit hard are the ones the came up during the hardest years of the wars 2005-2009 time frame.
4. During this time frame almost everyone was getting promoted because they had to fill billets.
5. OCS requirements were dropped.
6. Green to Gold and OCS direct selections were being given to Div CDRs to pick soldiers with little to no other screening....we still had trouble finding enough Soldiers that wanted to get their commissions...bottom line: if you said yes, they were sent.I had a great NCO that had a DWI in his background during this time, I told him he would not get selected because of it, but when sent his packet forward and he still make the cut for OCS (pretty much unheard of prior to GWOT).

So, when they make these cuts, if they are reviewing files that included prior enlisted time, anyone who made the cut during these times, that would not have made it in years where there was much more scrutiny are probably being given the "pink slip" because in the big Army it is a numbers game and they have to get to that number no matter what, and if you have any type of negative discriminator in your file then you are going to get selected.

LTC (Join to see) I think this article--and the range of already published and soon to be published related articles about OSB results--is a big deal because it addresses evident disparity in rates of selection for involuntary separation based on demographics; that the only reason we know anything about OSB demographics is that a powerpoint leaked from HRC showing some of the demographic information; and that the Army simply has not done a very good job messaging force reduction. In essence, this comes down to one word: transparency. The Army was not transparent with the 2014 OSB, or the 2014 OSB results.

Does the Army need to be transparent with processes regarding force shaping or force reduction? I doubt there's a statutory requirement for the Army to be transparent. However, for the health of the organization, transparency can only be positive.

I do appreciate your closing question of "Or how about 5 of 5 captains selected to be cut were all officers, regardless of their background, that did not meet the requirements for the Army to continue service?" This highlights the plot of 1,701 Army officers told they would be involuntarily separated from the Army based on the OSB. However, what I think articles (like the one you posted) question is if these officers were separated simply because "they did not meet the requirements for the Army to continue service," or if other factors played a role (ie, memo of instruction to OSB board members).

The one question I've put forward on numerous occasions that would seem to help address this issue is: How many officers in the target OSB population that had "bad paper" or "derogatory information" or etc did not get selected, and how many officers without such "bad stuff" in their records did?

At any rate, thanks for posting--OSB is, unfortunately, a process that is with us for 2015 as well, so these conversations are likely to continue.

Thanks for posting....

MSG Stankovich....I wrote and posted about this too. Here are my thoughts...

1) How is 1 in 5 disproportionate? Why wasn't it 4 in 5 cut were not prior service? I understand the concern about those affected having to retired at their highest enlisted grade if they didn't reach the 10 years of commissioned service, but I didn't see (any might have over looked it) it talking about those who were cut not reaching retirement at all. There was one mention of a captain with 22 years, prior service, being cut and she was claiming that she might have to file bankruptcy, my question would be....what is she doing to live outside her means that would cause this and in those 22 years, what else has she done to prepare for retirement?

2) What did these captains to do be cut by the Army. Most would have had to have something in their file that set them apart from the rest to be cut? It is unfortunately, but if we are required to reduce our force levels, there had to be a mark on the wall.

Just my two cents here.

As a rough estimate, I would guess that junior Field Grade officers with prior service are probably at around 13-15 years; those without prior grade 11-12 years. I don't know if Majors are among the highest numbers of cuts, but I could understand how ones closer to retirement might be "culled" from the herd, regardless of how important their experiences are to service.

MSG Stankovich, this seems to have always been true. There are likely some valid reasons, and I for one have also seen some built-in bias by less than stellar superiors--but also some amazing enlightened ones who try to inject more sense. DOR/DOS and source of commission do play a role in when one is considered, as do OERS, education, etc.